1 Thursday, 18 July 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.35 p.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon. Please be seated.

6 May we please hear the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T,

8 the Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the appearances for today.

10 MS. KORNER: After that dramatic opening, Your Honour, it's Joanna

11 Korner together with Ruth Karper, case manager.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So today, on the other side, we can see two

13 counsel, happy enough. Welcome back.

14 MR. LUKIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Branko Lukic and

15 Mr. John Ostojic for the Defence.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

17 May I take the opportunity today once again to ask Dr. Stakic

18 about the health condition. Are there any problems in the Detention Unit

19 you wanted to address?

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Currently,

21 I do not have any health problems, nor are there any significant problems

22 that I would like to raise in respect of the Detention Unit, no.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I just wanted to recall in the

24 presence of both Defence counsel that as it was indicated in the beginning

25 of the case, it will be, and it's, of course, still your right whenever

1 you want to make a statement in the framework of the Rules of Procedure

2 and Evidence. This means that when you believe it is necessary and after

3 having discussed this issue together with your Defence counsel to appear

4 as a witness probably only related to the one or other issue. Maybe the

5 question what was the reason from your point of view why you did not

6 continue as it apparently seems to be after that what we have heard from

7 Witness Beglerbegovic. And in addition, as mentioned before, from the

8 point of view of the Judges, it is also your right to give, under the

9 rules, a statement, if you so want and after having discussed this with

10 your Defence counsel. I only wanted to recall this when we discussed last

11 week this question of the finalisation of this part addressed in the

12 indictment before us.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise for having sat down. I

14 thought you had finished, Your Honour. But I have taken note of your

15 explanation. I understand it. And I should like to thank you.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then, any administrative matters?

17 What about the witness for -- you may be seated, please.

18 What about the witness? Is the problem resolved for next week?

19 MS. KORNER: I think it is, Your Honour. I think the witness will

20 be here, as I understand it. Mr. Koumjian was dealing with it, and will

21 be coming into court later to deal with the other matter I raised.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The last message I heard one hour ago from the

23 Registrar in person, he told me that he will do the -- that it will be

24 possible to hear this witness. And as it was said already yesterday, the

25 Defence was prepared to continue this way. Then we would have two

1 additional witnesses for next week, for the beginning of the week.

2 And what about today after --

3 MS. KORNER: No, there's no witness after Mr. Mayhew because we

4 worked roughly on the basis that he would take two full sessions. I

5 think, in fact, again we slightly overestimated, but I don't know how much

6 Mr. Ostojic has for Mr. Mayhew.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good. So nothing else is foreseen for today

8 that we can draw the conclusion that afterwards, we can conclude today's

9 hearing.

10 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, we thought -- we do have some more

11 documents, a list which may require reading. But I know that there are a

12 couple of administrative matters, or at least one, to deal with this

13 question of the documents we received yesterday from the Detention Unit.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You see me as a big question mark. Which

15 documents are you referring to?

16 MS. KORNER: The documents that Your Honour referred to in the

17 order. We have been supplied with a photocopy of what was clearly an

18 original and we want to raise that. We need original documents to do the

19 testing.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt.

21 Anything from your side to be addressed before the beginning?

22 MR. OSTOJIC: No.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then the witness may be brought in,

24 please.

25 [The witness entered court]

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon.

2 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated immediately. And same applies

4 as was said yesterday; you are still under the solemn declaration from

5 yesterday when now listening to the questions of the Defence.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Good afternoon.

8 WITNESS: JAMES BARNABAS BURKE MAYHEW [Resumed]

9 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:

10 Q. Mr. Mayhew, my name is John Ostojic and along with Mr. Branko

11 Lukic I represent Dr. Stakic. I'm going to ask you a few questions in

12 connection with your testimony yesterday which I've had the opportunity to

13 review, as well as your reports that were provided to the OTP.

14 Yesterday I noticed, reading the transcript, that at times because

15 we both speak English, that you and the OTP did overlap and there was an

16 issue, so to the extent that I pause, it's only to give an opportunity

17 for everyone to get the proper and complete translation and give you an

18 opportunity to reflect on the question and provide us with a complete

19 answer. Fair enough?

20 A. That's fine.

21 Q. Thank you. Sir, I notice in the witness statement that you

22 provided to the OTP on March 14th and 15th, 2000, you state as your

23 current occupation being that of a consultant. Correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Can you tell us exactly what you currently do?

1 A. Yes, I'm self-employed, and I work as an advisor to aid agencies

2 and a trainer of aid workers. And I also work for the government if they

3 need advice on policy. I also lecture a certain amount, particularly at

4 the British Military Staff College and other military and the European

5 Police College on humanitarian agencies and how they work in order to

6 explain the realities on the ground, in a situation such as a peacekeeping

7 operation with a humanitarian operation happening beside.

8 Q. In particular, can you share with us which aid agencies you are

9 consulting with currently?

10 A. Currently, only one group of aid agencies, which is known as the

11 Emergency Personnel Network. It includes quite a number of aid agencies,

12 but prominent among them are the British Red Cross, Save the Children Fund

13 UK, an organisation called Redar, Engineers for Disaster Relief, and a

14 number of others. That's the only client I have at the present.

15 Q. Since 1992 to the present, have you ever worked for any agency

16 affiliated with the ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia?

17 A. I have been an evaluator on a mission of a number of weeks for a

18 group of aid agencies called Action by Churches Together. This is the

19 humanitarian arm of the World Council of Churches. And because of that,

20 it does include churches based in the Balkan region including, for

21 example, the Orthodox church. So to that extent, yes, I have had

22 connection with aid operations in the Balkans.

23 Q. Any others other than that which you've mentioned?

24 A. None come to mind at present, but I could check if that was

25 necessary.

1 Q. If I may ask you a general question with respect to your

2 preparation for the work that you did commencing March of 1992 in Zagreb

3 and in Bosnia, were you familiar with the various conferences and meetings

4 that were taking place throughout Europe during that timeframe?

5 Specifically, I'm referencing the London Conference, the Lisbon meetings,

6 as well as the Geneva agreement of May 22, 1992?

7 A. At the moment I don't recall the Lisbon or Geneva meetings. I do

8 recall the London Conference. The general answer to the question is yes,

9 I would be aware of all major meetings of that kind. However, my work was

10 usually at the ground level and not concerned with the high-level

11 diplomacy as I but only in so far as it, more or less, directly affected

12 my work at ground level.

13 Q. Is it fair to state that you were doing on the ground was an

14 attempt to influence what was happening at the higher diplomatic level?

15 A. At times, there will be a direct connection. If we verified an

16 event on the ground, that would have an impact, of course, elsewhere. Our

17 overall aim was to prevent fighting and to persuade people not to fight.

18 But -- and so our actions on the ground would be directed to that end.

19 But we would only, I think, seek to influence negotiations at a higher

20 level by the use of verified fact on the ground if we felt that facts on

21 the ground were not being taken into account properly or fully at these

22 negotiations.

23 Q. When you tell us that you were there to verify certain facts, who

24 would give you an assignment as to which facts you should verify? Were

25 you just given one task and say, if you look and examine this issue and

1 have the seven people such as yourself along with the three or four

2 interpreters that I think accompanied you, who would give you the task and

3 can you tell us what was the game plan for verification of those facts or

4 rumours as you've identified them yesterday?

5 A. In general, we were not given specific tasks for our daily work.

6 We were given an overall aim to follow, which was to report in a balanced

7 and accurate way on the situation on the ground, specifically to make sure

8 that we were including all viewpoints and speaking to a balanced mix of

9 interlocutors. So we were a monitor mission. It was to report a general

10 understanding of the whole picture, as far as we could obtain it. Within

11 that, we were not frequently, I think probably very rarely, given specific

12 verification tasks. However, that did happen at times, and in particular,

13 I recall in Croatia before I moved to Bosnia being sent to a number of

14 villages to verify the situation in those specific villages where certain

15 allegations of ethnic cleansing by Croats against Serbs had been alleged.

16 And they wanted facts and figures to be put on to those allegations.

17 Q. And that was at one time also the area of Derventa, correct, that

18 you actually verified certain facts?

19 A. Yes, I don't recall at the moment being asked to verify a

20 particular detail in Derventa but it was possible we were asked to do so.

21 Our primary work there was in the context of our normal aim of reporting

22 on the whole situation, doing what we could to calm the situation down.

23 Q. Do you recall, sir, if you were ever given a task in March or

24 April of 1992 to investigate a massacre of Serbs in the area called

25 Sijekovac?

1 A. I'm not certain of that name. It would be easy to check that with

2 the reports. If there was a task given, it would have been reported on by

3 me and it would be in the archive.

4 Q. The reports that were introduced as evidence yesterday that you

5 reviewed, would it be fair to say that that is a complete and

6 comprehensive litany of the reports that you provided to your superiors

7 during your stay from March all the way through September of 1992, and

8 obviously excepting that there was an intermittent period in which you

9 were not present in the area?

10 A. No, it's not complete. There are a number of reports not present

11 in what we talked about yesterday. I would normally provide a daily

12 report when out on the ground, or possibly my teammate would do it.

13 Typically, it would be me because of my native English.

14 Q. Who was your teammate at that time?

15 A. Are you talking about Derventa.

16 Q. I'm talking about March and April 1992.

17 A. It varied. In Derventa, it was a man called Botonakis, a Greek

18 colonel, and I probably teamed up with other members of the team. We

19 formed teams usually of two monitors plus a driver plus an interpreter,

20 and that tended to mix around depending on people's leave periods and the

21 needs of the moment.

22 Q. Do you recall a situation involving again in the period of March,

23 April 1992 of a massacre in Kupres?

24 A. I don't recall that specific massacre. You must understand that

25 there were many massacres, and certainly many more allegations of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 massacres. And strange though it may seem now, unless I was engaged

2 particularly on a task concerning that, the many allegations became -- I

3 didn't pay particular attention to remembering every single allegation

4 because there were so many, and the situation was confused, fast-changing,

5 and we had to be quite ruthless in our prioritisation of what was our

6 primary task that day when there was so much else that we could be trying

7 to do.

8 Q. Can you tell us once you left Zagreb and came to Bosnia and in the

9 Prijedor area, if you know geographically how far Prijedor is from the

10 Croatian border at that time?

11 A. I don't recall.

12 Q. Do you recall if it was approximately 30 kilometres?

13 A. That sounds possible.

14 Q. As you sit here, do you have a different estimate that it may be

15 far more or far less than 30 kilometres from the Croatian border is where

16 Prijedor is situated?

17 A. I'm not sure that's a fair question after ten years. I'm very

18 experienced with maps and geography. At the time, I would have had a very

19 accurate idea of the layout. I have a feeling that it could be that sort

20 of distance or greater, but...

21 Q. Do you have an opinion, sir, if it's established that indeed there

22 were massacres that were occurring by Croatians and/or Muslims of the

23 Serbian civilians and population in March and April of 1992, what effect

24 would it have on the Serbian population in Prijedor?

25 A. It would make them very afraid and very angry. It would lead some

1 to want to take action, and it would lead some to take action, and we

2 frequently came across reports on all three sides of military,

3 paramilitary, and apparently civilian people taking extra-judicial,

4 violent action against people of the other group. It was certainly not

5 constricted -- restricted to one side.

6 Q. Can you tell me, sir, if you recall ever verifying that there was

7 a massacre of Serbs in any part of Croatia or Bosnia in March and April of

8 1992?

9 A. I only would have verified any event in an area to which I was

10 deployed. I was deployed briefly in Croatia before I went to Bosnia, and

11 I did not go to verify a massacre of Serbs in that time. I had fairly

12 brief missions. I did, however, verify ethnic expulsions, commonly known

13 as ethnic cleansing of Serbs by Croats, and that was my first experience

14 of that phenomenon.

15 Q. Are you familiar, sir, whether or not there was a Croatian/Muslim

16 coalition that was acting in concert together against the Serbs at any

17 time during your stay at that former territory, either Croatia or in

18 Bosnia?

19 A. Certainly in Bosnia.

20 Q. When you say "certainly," how did you come to learn that there was

21 a coalition between Croatians and Muslims against the Serbs in Bosnia,

22 during the period of time of March through September 1992?

23 A. Well, it was widely reported by our teams and by others that in

24 central and southwest Bosnia there was a Muslim/Croat coalition. That's

25 one point, and I think that's a matter of widely known historical record.

1 I wasn't personally in that area, but I was dealing with reports from

2 there.

3 As for northern Bosnia, my time in Derventa, for example, the town

4 divided into an area controlled by a Muslim and Croat coalition, and an

5 area controlled by the Bosnian Serb groupings. I will just urge a little

6 caution on the record "coalition," that it could be subject to a

7 various -- varying interpretations. But it was certainly the Muslims and

8 Croats working together in Derventa at that time. And the nature of the

9 coalition might have been quite fleeting, temporary, and insubstantial, or

10 might have been much more permanent, and we weren't aware of the precise

11 nature of that coalition.

12 Q. Well, tell me what --

13 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Could I ask what the relevance of these

14 questions is about Derventa and areas outside Prijedor.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: Would the Court like me to reply?

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, do so.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. First of all, the witness obviously

18 testified to that in his direct examination yesterday. It's also included

19 in his report. The other most important issue is the Court knows Manjaca

20 is a military camp that is not subject to the indictment against the

21 accused. Yet, there were numerous questions asked by the Prosecutor and

22 testimony elicited by this witness, and I think to put the witness in the

23 proper perspective and to get the complete picture, as he himself states

24 in his testimony and in his report, it's necessary for the Court to

25 understand, we believe, and it's relevant to understand the entire climate

1 as opposed to take the events leading up to Prijedor in a vacuum so that

2 they may ultimately be fully -- more fully understood by all. So we think

3 the time and the scope of it is enormously close, and would be relevant.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I do not disagree. The only point is, indeed,

5 the witness appears, at least for me, more or less an opinion witness.

6 But I think we can raise any objections balancing objections in the two

7 directions. And we didn't interrupt the OTP when discussing the

8 issue -- this issue, and indeed, it may be fact-based, fact-based

9 important to hear something more about the background and the development

10 leading to this what forms --

11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I certainly think it's relevant. One, I

12 deliberately did not ask questions about Manjaca, except to put in to

13 context Trnopolje. I omitted all the reports and everything that dealt

14 with Manjaca. So to say that I asked questions about Manjaca is not

15 correct. But secondly, Your Honour, I am not aware that I asked any

16 questions about anything outside the area of Prijedor. But if Your Honour

17 thinks --

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you feel like being criticised, it's a

19 totally wrong approach. I just want to recall that we discussed in depth

20 the report of the CSCE mission to inspect places of detention in

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and there it is indeed important, and you stressed

22 indeed this point, the overview - I don't know the name - the places of

23 detentions, it was annex E leading, and I think it's correct, not only to

24 Manjaca and Trnopolje, but giving us the overview of places of detention

25 open until this point in time. And the context is important, as it was

1 already pointed out by the OTP in the entire beginning of this case when

2 discussing these issues on the basis of Dr. Donia's report. Therefore, I

3 think it's only fair to hear -- to grant the Defence the possibility to

4 ask these questions covered already earlier by Mr. Donia, and it was -- my

5 remark was not related at all to that what you asked yesterday, save these

6 parts where indeed reference was made also to other parts of former

7 Yugoslavia, in this case Bosnia-Herzegovina.

8 So the Defence may proceed.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. Sir, just a couple more questions if I may, and I know you

11 hesitate to use the word "Croatian and Muslim coalition," respecting that,

12 what would you call it, then? A partnership or a coexistence or how would

13 you like me to call it?

14 A. I do not hesitate to use the word "coalition". I simply want it

15 to be clear that it is subject to various interpretations. And when I use

16 the world "coalition" I am not making a statement about exactly what kind

17 of relationship it was. I'm sorry, I'm getting all tangled up here.

18 Because I don't think we were aware of the precise nature of that

19 relationship, as indeed we were not aware of the internal goings on at

20 that higher level, generally in all the three communities. So I'm quite

21 happy with the world "coalition." I just put in a caveat about its

22 precise meaning.

23 Q. And we'll accept your interpretation for the moment of that and we

24 will work with that. How early if you know, was this coalition between

25 the Croatian and Muslim groups formed?

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. Do you think it's important to know with respect to the events

3 that took place in April through August of 1992 to have verified whether

4 or not the coalition between the Croatians and Muslims occurred before

5 April of 1992 or after September of 1992? That would be relevant. Would

6 you agree with me?

7 A. Relevant to political judgements. I was not in the business of

8 making major political judgements. We would report the facts that we

9 found, and when we discovered that there was such a relationship, we would

10 report it.

11 Q. But was the coalition only, sir, as far as you knew that which

12 existed in March of 1992? I mean, that's when you first learned or

13 understood that there was a coalition between the two Croatian and Muslim

14 groups. Correct?

15 A. I don't remember when I first learned that. But it would have

16 been in March or April 1992, but bear in mind I arrived in the region in

17 March 1992.

18 Q. Was the coalition, sir, to the best of your knowledge and opinion,

19 a coalition only on a political level or was it also a coalition of a

20 military kind as well?

21 A. In Derventa, it was -- it seemed to us to be of a military or

22 paramilitary kind as well, in the sense that men had taken up arms, both

23 Muslim and Croat men, within Derventa and were facing the Serbs.

24 Q. Do you know, sir, if the Croatian authorities, military, were ever

25 providing Muslims with arms to fight against the Serbs?

1 A. We were never able to verify arms' supplies by anyone, as far as I

2 recall, within the ECMM. We had a strong suspicion that Croatia was

3 supplying arms at least to the Bosnian Croat forces, regular or irregular.

4 And since the Muslims and Croats were cooperating in Derventa at least and

5 elsewhere as we've already mentioned, we suspected that arms might be

6 reaching the Muslim side as well from Croatia.

7 Q. For clarification, Exhibit S217 was provisionally marked, it's the

8 report of the CSCE mission to inspect places of detention in

9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 29 August through 4th September, 1992. Sir, is this

10 the report that was filed by Sir John Thomson?

11 A. I believe so.

12 Q. And it's the basis of some of the opinions that you're providing

13 to the Court and your testimony yesterday, it was this specific exhibit

14 that you reviewed or this report, as well as the report by Mr. Charles

15 McLeod. Correct?

16 A. That report is not the basis of my opinions. That would not be

17 correct. However, I was asked yesterday whether I agreed with a number of

18 parts of it and to the report in general, and my answers were to that

19 group of questions.

20 Q. Do you recall when you were asked that yesterday in open session

21 or at any time prior to reviewing this report, did you find anything you

22 disagreed with in the report?

23 A. I remember that in general, I agreed with -- I agreed with it.

24 It's possible that there are small parts which I disagreed with, but they

25 don't come to mind. In general, I thought it was a fair report and well

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 written.

2 Q. Let me ask you, with respect to this report, specifically annex

3 D --

4 MR. OSTOJIC: And if I may have the Court have the Registrar

5 provide a copy of that to him so Mr. Mayhew may have it in front of him.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please do so.

7 MR. OSTOJIC:

8 Q. I apologise, sir. The pages that I have are not completely

9 numbered, so if you just look at the top, you'll be able to find the annex

10 D that I refer to. It appears on ER number 00999598.

11 A. Yes, I have it.

12 Q. This was part of the report when you reviewed the report, correct,

13 and it's, in essence, an agreement which was an invitation of the

14 International Red Cross between the three ethnic parties in Bosnia.

15 Correct?

16 A. Yes. In fact I haven't read this annex. I didn't read the whole

17 report but only those aspects that seemed to me directly relevant to my

18 area of work with the team, particularly what we saw on the ground.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. I feel it as my obligation to caution

20 the witness. You were asked beforehand whether or not you agree with the

21 entire, to a certain extent, with the entire report. And at that time

22 already, you should have told the Court that you haven't read the entire

23 report. Otherwise, it could be the wrong testimony.

24 THE WITNESS: Thank you. By way of explanation, I have taken --

25 This annex is an attached agreement, and I took the question to mean the

1 report as written by the authors. Perhaps that was a loose term of

2 language, but this is an agreement outside the scope of the mission's work

3 and outside the scope of the work on the ground. And I apologise if I

4 appeared to mislead. There was no intention to do so.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You understood the admonition.

6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour.

8 Q. If you could turn to the second page of the report, and maybe we

9 could, in a nutshell -- actually of the report not of the annex, Mr.

10 Mayhew, second page of the report itself, which is 00999571, it starts

11 with the word "Contents"?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you tell us, at least looking at the contents of this, what I

14 thought was the report, which part did you read and which part did you

15 not, and we'll get back to annex in a moment?

16 A. I have read parts 1, 2, and 3 which are the substantive parts of

17 the report. The attached documents it seemed to me, were not in the main

18 body of the report. I have, however, read the list of mission members,

19 annex G; the notes on detention places visited by the mission, annex F;

20 list of detention places visited by the mission, annex E; annex C, the

21 memorandum on Trnopolje; annex B, the list of alleged detention places;

22 and I looked at the map. So, in fact, annex D is the only annex I didn't

23 read, unfortunately.

24 Q. That's fine. Let's just take a look at annex D. I have a couple

25 questions with respect to that if I may. It states there was a meeting

1 that took place in Geneva on the 22nd of May 1992 where discussions on

2 different aspects of the application and implementation of international

3 humanitarian law was discussed. Do you see that?

4 A. Which part are we talking about here?

5 Q. It's right at the centre of the page on the first page of annex D.

6 A. Yes, thank you. Yes, I see that.

7 Q. Does that, sir, help refresh your recollection as to whether or

8 not there was a meeting in Geneva on May 22nd, 1992 to discuss the

9 different aspects, with respect to international humanitarian law?

10 A. No, it doesn't. I don't recall the meeting. There were, of

11 course, many meetings at that time. So that is no surprise to me.

12 Q. Going down a couple paragraphs, it says also "Taking into

13 consideration The Hague statement of the 5th November, 1991," are you

14 familiar sir at all that there were meetings at The Hague here in the

15 Netherlands involving the United Nations on or about November of 1991?

16 A. I can't claim to have any specific memory of that meeting or of,

17 no doubt, many other meetings at the time.

18 Q. Is there any reason we should doubt this annex and this report by

19 Sir John Thomson which seems to indicate that there was a meeting at

20 The Hague on or about November 5th, 1991?

21 A. None as far as I'm aware.

22 Q. Now, when you were preparing to go on the field in March of 1992,

23 were you, sir, briefed with respect to the background of the different

24 ethnic groups as well as the political proposed settlement that was taking

25 place both at The Hague, in Geneva, as well as during the London

1 Conference?

2 A. We had general briefings. They were not comprehensive, but they

3 did include the background on the ethnic groups. They did include a

4 summary of political events in recent times. But they were certainly not

5 comprehensive, and we took steps to improve that in the course of the next

6 few months.

7 Q. I'm not sure if I understand your testimony. Are you telling me

8 that initially in March and April 1992 when you were on the Croatian front

9 line if I can call it that, you weren't well informed, and then subsequent

10 when you returned in August of 1992 you were given another briefing and

11 you were more informed?

12 A. No, I'm not telling you that.

13 Q. Explain that to me.

14 A. What I'm saying is that briefings were not very full. There were

15 briefings. We felt that they could be improved. When I returned to the

16 headquarters later, one of my responsibilities at various times was to

17 contribute to the initial briefing of newly arrived monitors, and we

18 improved and lengthened the amount of briefing given to monitors later

19 that year.

20 Q. Having gone back to the area or the region of Bosnia in August of

21 1992, were you informed at any time, sir, whether or not this agreement

22 was actually signed and agreed by all three parties, as reflected on annex

23 D?

24 A. I don't recall the agreement, and therefore, I can't comment on

25 that question.

1 Q. Do you recall, sir, if you were ever briefed or discussions were

2 held in connection with provocation by various ethnic groups in trying to

3 interfere and to actually derail the agreement that was being offered and

4 that was being discussed at a higher diplomatic level during May 1992?

5 A. There were many acts of provocation and attempts to derail

6 political agreements on all sides. And that would no doubt have applied

7 to this agreement, though I can't comment on the agreement in detail for

8 the reason that I've given. But I was certainly aware, we all were, of

9 that sort of provocation and contrary behaviour.

10 Q. Who informed you of those provocations?

11 A. It was a almost daily occurrence around the missionary, so by

12 reading our reports, we would be informed about it.

13 Q. Did you sir at any time attempt to verify if, on May 22nd, there

14 was a provocation by the Muslims against the Serbs in Hambarine, which is

15 in the Prijedor Municipality?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. Would that have been a significant item that if you had actually

18 done any -- I want to call it an investigating, but any verification of

19 that issue, that would have been something that you would have recorded.

20 Correct?

21 A. Yes, but please correct me if I am wrong, the record will show the

22 dates, but I think we had evacuated from northern Bosnia before the 22nd

23 of May. We had no means of verifying anything in northern Bosnia on that

24 date.

25 Q. But isn't it true, though, your job even in August was to verify

1 what had transpired, to try to ease the tensions of the people, to bring

2 the ethnic groups together, and in fact if there was a claim by the Serbs

3 if there was a provocation on a checkpoint where a Serbian police officer

4 was killed, allegedly, wasn't it part and parcel your job, sir, and only

5 jour job of your mission to verify the truth of that allegation?

6 A. It was our job to verify everything we could in areas where we had

7 the possibility. Where we were not able to go directly, we were, of

8 course, not able to verify. We would often pass on reports that we had

9 received, which were unverified by their very nature. They might be press

10 reports or claims from one of the three sides. And it's quite possible

11 that we passed on reports on that. But since we were not able to go to

12 the area, it would have been irresponsible for us to pronounce a judgement

13 on what had or had not happened. And this goes to the very heart of the

14 problem that we had in our mission, that where access was denied us or for

15 other reasons we were not able to go to an area, typically security

16 reasons, verification was impossible. And to claim to have verified would

17 have been irresponsible.

18 Q. You mentioned that you left the area in May of 1992. And that was

19 as a result of a death of one of your colleagues, correct, that occurred

20 in Bosnia?

21 A. Yes, that was a major contributing reason, but there were other

22 reasons. It was an overall assessment of the security situation

23 throughout Bosnia. That event was the trigger for the decision which was

24 taken soon afterwards.

25 Q. With respect to that unfortunate incident, can you give us a

1 timeframe as to when it occurred? Was it before or after the alleged

2 implementation of this agreement which was to take effect on the 26th of

3 May, 1992?

4 A. It would have been before the 26th of May because we evacuated

5 before then.

6 Q. Did your mission, sir, at any time investigate the perpetrators of

7 that murder of your colleague in May of 1992?

8 A. Yes, in fact I was a part of the team of inquiry into that killing

9 and murder correctly described. And as a result, I travelled to the area

10 where it happened as soon as it became safe to do so. There was a delay

11 because he was killed in no man's land, and it was not safe to go

12 immediately. We did not investigate the perpetrators, although we tried

13 to, because we concluded they were members of the Serb forces in that

14 area. And we -- I mean, we ourselves had no power to investigate members

15 of armed forces in a legal sense, and as I recall, when we passed our

16 report on, action was not possible because of the Serb authorities'

17 responses and refusal to allow that.

18 Q. Okay. What was the basis for your conclusion that it was the Serb

19 forces who perpetrated this crime, not having your report here, not being

20 able to evaluate what it is that you said in that report, but taking into

21 consideration that you yourself stated that you could not and did not

22 investigate that allegation?

23 MS. KORNER: We do actually have -- I'm sorry. We have the

24 report, if you want it. It has absolutely no relevance at all to this

25 case, but we have the full report.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I see it as an objection as to the relevance --

2 MS. KORNER: I mean, I'm merely stating -- because I heard

3 Mr. Ostojic assert this fact, so I thought I better let him know straight

4 away if he thinks it's of relevance he can have the report. But I can't

5 see the relevance at the moment.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if I may, it's my understanding under

7 the rules that they are required to provide us with his statements, his

8 full report, although we appreciate their assistance that they have

9 provided us on numerous occasions, the Defence does not wish for the OTP

10 to determine for the Defence what is or is not relevant. The OTP, as it

11 has with other witnesses, has provided us enormous amount of documents,

12 without identifying whether they are relevant or under specifically Rule

13 68 or merely just provided it to us. We find it somewhat ironic, at least

14 I do, Your Honour, respectfully, that here is a person who was involved in

15 an incident that occurred on or about the timeframe which is within the

16 period of the fourth amended revised indictment and she or the OTP makes a

17 decision whether it's relevant or not.

18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we have been making this decision all

19 along. It couldn't have remotely occurred to anyone, and indeed, I will

20 object to the relevance of this, that the investigation of a shooting of a

21 monitor way out of the area that this case is concerned with, could be of

22 the slightest relevance in any way, shape, or form to Dr. Stakic's case.

23 And the complaint has been from -- in most cases that we load the Defence

24 with documents that they don't need. But, Your Honour, I'm merely

25 pointing out to Mr. Os Stojic and I'm now going to ask Mr. Ostojic to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 justify why it is relevant for this Court to hear about the report of a

2 shooting of an ECMM monitor completely unconnected with the events in this

3 area.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may, Your Honour, I'd like to address and

5 answer that specific question, but I'd like to do so outside the presence

6 of Mr. Mayhew if I may, with all due respect to him. Because I think at

7 times we've discussed things that I felt were somewhat borderline when the

8 witness is here. But I'd like to at least answer that question directly

9 without him being present if I may, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we proceed this way, that you probably

11 continue with another line of question, and then immediately after the

12 break, we discuss the issue of relevance.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mayhew.

15 With respect to your military background, sir, you discussed it in

16 brief yesterday, and I read it within your statement. Can you share with

17 us, sir, if at any time during your military training and background you

18 ever took any instruction or commands from a civilian authority?

19 A. I don't think so.

20 Q. Can you tell us why not?

21 A. Because at my junior level, I will be commanded normally by a more

22 senior officer. In the end, the military will be responsible to a

23 civilian government, but not at my level.

24 Q. Do you think that the military, sir, under any circumstance is

25 responsible to a local community leader in an area when, in fact, as

1 stated in your testimony yesterday, there was a new republic being formed

2 or attempted to be formed by Mr. Radic from Banja Luka and others as we

3 know, do you think that a local leader would have any influence over a

4 military, sir?

5 A. In the British army, not normally. There are occasions when that

6 would be the case, when the military are providing aid to the civil power

7 and there is a legal framework under which that is done in times of

8 natural disaster and in other circumstances. The systems differ around

9 the world. I've seen a number of armies functioning, and I have had

10 direct experience in other countries of armies working or military groups

11 working under command directly of a civilian within the governing

12 structure.

13 Q. With respect to the incident that we referred to as the incident

14 at Hambarine on May 22nd, are you, sir, familiar with an incident that

15 occurred at the village or the town, I should say, of Kozarac on May 24th,

16 1992, a couple of days after the Hambarine incident, and again a couple of

17 days before the implementation of this agreement that we've seen on annex

18 D that we were briefly discussing earlier? Are you aware of that incident

19 at all?

20 A. I'm not aware of it now. However, if we were aware of it, I would

21 expect it to show in the daily summary reports of the ECMM.

22 Q. But all your daily summary reports are not provided to us, are

23 they?

24 A. That's not a question for me.

25 Q. You saw all of them yesterday. Did you see a report that you had

1 which talked about a military convoy that was passing through on the

2 Prijedor/Banja Luka main road --

3 A. No.

4 Q. Let me just finish the question.

5 A. Sorry. I apologise.

6 Q. That's okay. I may even change it at times at the end, so we have

7 to be a little careful.

8 Do you remember, sir, a report regarding a military convoy that

9 was passing on the road, of the Prijedor/Banja Luka main road, and it was

10 attacked specifically in the area known as Kozarac on or about May 24th,

11 1992 wherein several soldiers on the very first convoy were killed?

12 A. No, I don't remember that. Again, it's of no surprise to me. I

13 was dealing with a complex situation, many events around the region,

14 reporting many such violent incidents every day. Ten years later, I'm

15 most unlikely to remember it, unless my memory is refreshed by the

16 relevant reports.

17 Q. What effect in your opinion, if any, would an attack on the

18 military convoy have on May 24th to the people in the Prijedor

19 Municipality?

20 A. It would increase fear, it would increase anger, it would increase

21 tension between the communities. Are you asking only about its effect on

22 civilians or on others?

23 Q. At this time only on the civilians. We'll talk about the military.

24 My next question is about the military.

25 A. That's my answer then.

1 Q. What effect would it have, because the report clearly indicates,

2 with respect to your interviews with several of the prisoners in the

3 Trnopolje camp, that you discussed with them this May 24th attack on

4 Kozarac and that, in fact, some of the witnesses told you the military

5 attacked them and within 30 hours, I believe your report states, that they

6 started looting the homes, evacuating the people from the area, burning

7 the homes, et cetera?

8 A. Yes, would it be possible for me to see the report? I remember it

9 now, this is my conversation in Trnopolje relating to how people left

10 their homes. It would be helpful for me to see that, if that's all right

11 with the Court.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: I have no objection. Let me just find it. Just let

13 me direct his attention to it, if I may.

14 For the Court and perhaps the Registrar has this as an exhibit,

15 this is the report --

16 MS. KORNER: 215. Exhibit 215.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Exhibit S215, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

19 MR. OSTOJIC:

20 Q. Sir, is that the report which on the first page has Manjaca and

21 Trnopolje identified?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And if you go down to the section on page 2 of that report, under

24 "Trnopolje," I think there's a brief discussion of the open reception

25 centre as identified in the first sentence, then four paragraphs below,

1 under the caption "Trnopolje," I think it discusses interviews with

2 witnesses, et cetera. And if you can take an opportunity now to review

3 that, and I have some questions on that.

4 A. Yes, that's fine.

5 Q. Sir, it's true if you flip on the next page that this is your

6 report?

7 A. That's right.

8 Q. It has that caveat on it, which we'll talk about a little bit. I

9 know it was mentioned yesterday. With respect to this paragraph, did you

10 verify, sir, as to whether or not the military actually took 30 hours in

11 order to evacuate, loot, and to burn the homes in the Kozarac area, on or

12 about May 24th, 1992?

13 A. No. And as I explained in the text, this is a reported

14 conversation. It's a claim.

15 Q. Do you know, sir, if at any time the military contacted the local

16 leaders, after having sustained an attack during this convoy trip on the

17 Prijedor/Banja Luka in order to ask the local authorities once their own

18 military personnel were shot - I'm asking you to assume that - what they

19 should do in response?

20 A. No, you have my report here. And if I had known further facts, I

21 would have reported them.

22 Q. Sir, as your job on this mission, did you try to obtain any other

23 facts to know what led to this military attack on Kozarac?

24 A. No, and the reason for that was we were escorting a team in. Our

25 job was to facilitate their visit, and we had no liberty to, because of

1 the programme that was set, to go off and begin our work again. In

2 addition, we had no authorisation from either our mission or from the

3 Bosnian-Serb authorities to be doing our work. We only had authorisation

4 for this specific visit, in which I was a facilitator.

5 Q. Sir, based on your experience and your presence in Bosnia in 1992,

6 would you agree with me that it's highly unlikely that a military

7 commander, whichever position he may hold, if attacked - and we're going

8 to assume he's being attacked - if he sustained some deaths on his

9 military personnel, would it be highly unlikely that that military command

10 would call a local leader in the town and ask him how he should respond to

11 the attack?

12 A. A military leader would be highly unlikely to ask advice, if

13 that's your question, from a civilian leader.

14 Q. Under that scenario and even scenarios less tragic than those that

15 we have described, based upon that assumption that they occurred.

16 Correct?

17 A. I'm sorry, what I'm asking -- my previous response was he would be

18 highly unlikely to ask for advice from a civilian leader from whose town

19 of the opposite ethnic group, that's what I'm referring to. So in the

20 case of Kozarac, to ask advice from the civilian leader from whose

21 population the military commander thinks the attack may have come, that's

22 the person he's highly unlikely to ask. Was your question about that, or

23 was it about any civilian leader?

24 Q. Any civilian leader. The military which was passing through,

25 whether they are a federal military unit, a republic military unit, would

1 they, while they are being attacked within that 24 to 30-hour period

2 actually call and contact the local leaders of Prijedor in order to

3 determine what, if anything, they should do?

4 A. That depends entirely on the relationship that they have with

5 them. If they have a classical military command structure which goes up,

6 say, to a defence council before reaching any civilian authority, then it

7 would be highly unlikely --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down for the

9 benefit of the interpreters, thank you.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For certain reasons, not only for the reason

11 just given, I think it's appropriate to have a break now. And I want to

12 recall that the one or other party asked the Bench in the past to

13 intervene when a witness starts to display his own opinion in a very broad

14 level and where the Judges would be interested to what extent the opinion

15 given here is fact-based. And of course, we have a fact witness before

16 us. I know you would say that in the past, we had some other problems.

17 But please be aware when discussing these issues during the last days, we

18 also learn lessons, also from motions of the parties, we will no longer

19 tolerate hypothetical questions on opinions of witnesses which appear here

20 as mere fact witnesses.

21 The trial stands adjourned until 10 minutes past 4.00. And then

22 we restart without the witness.

23 --- Recess taken at 3.35 p.m.

24 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

1 We agreed that we want to discuss the relevance of the question of

2 the killing of a colleague of the witness during the absence of the

3 witness. Please proceed.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour, for that opportunity. It's

5 uncertain because we don't have the report what effect, if any, the

6 killing of this colleague and person who came to investigate and to assist

7 in the tensions that were growing in the area in Bosnia. However, I think

8 it's logical to conclude that it may have an impact when a colleague of

9 yours is killed, as he put it, murdered, on his further duties and

10 responsibilities in the region. Although I don't want to speculate to

11 that, but it certainly goes and the rules provide that it may go to bias,

12 prejudice, or in some fashion the reports that were provided subsequent to

13 the killing and those that were provided prior to the killing. Without

14 having that, it's impossible for us to put it in proper context other than

15 to speculate that it may be.

16 Further to that, if this witness is testifying that it was a Serb

17 or Serb authorities, I think it's relevant because it happened in May of

18 1992. It was an area in, I think the OTP concedes and identifies in his

19 report, was in Mostar controlled by the Muslims and the Croatians at the

20 time. And if it's his belief, it was the Serbian forces, whether it's the

21 JNA or any other entity like that, because I understood from my learned

22 colleague that in his statement it says it was an JNA personnel who did

23 the killing, it may, in our opinion, have an impact on his credibility and

24 his reports that were prepared in August of 1992.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any observations in addition to this?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't think there's anything I can say

2 that isn't clear to Your Honour already. This is, in our submission, just

3 nonsense. The inquiry held into --

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please. Please.

5 MS. KORNER: -- Into the death of an ECMM monitor in Mostar in May

6 of 1992 can be relevant to the credibility of this witness we say is

7 errant nonsense. But it's up to Your Honours.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please understand that we don't share your

9 language. But to be serious, some remarks seem to be necessary, because

10 the word "relevance" seems to become a word of a foreign language in this

11 courtroom more and more. In the past, we were hesitant to intervene here

12 and there because it would stop the flow of information. And

13 recapitulating the last witnesses, starting, say, with Witness Sejmenovic,

14 the Judges have some doubt if it's really necessary to hear witnesses in

15 this unlimited way, introducing especially documents far away from the

16 witness before us through the witness. Because doing so, no doubt, it

17 opens Pandora's box for the other party, because then everything also, all

18 the parts of the documents, form part of the examination-in-chief, and the

19 Judges have no possibility to intervene when some documents or some parts

20 of the documents are contested.

21 And the last witness before us, really to emphasise all these

22 points of our major concern, it was announced one and a half hour, and our

23 assessment was this witness could have been heard in one and a half hour.

24 It took us two days. Once again, with the witness before us, we have

25 this, no doubt, important document. In our point of view, this document

1 could have been presented as a document as such, as all the other

2 documents introduced into this case. And I wonder why it's necessary to

3 face the witness with the question: "Does this comply with that what you

4 experienced at that time in the area?" Can you really expect a witness

5 telling us that he disagrees with what that was written down by his

6 superiors? When we discussed the question whether or not this witness

7 should be heard as a live witness, the basis was, as it was -- as it can

8 be found in the witness summary 59, it states: "In August 1992, he met

9 with Milomir Stakic in Prijedor who stated that Muslims were detained for

10 their own safety." Maybe I'm wrong, but I couldn't see anything about

11 this issue which was the reason why we said it would be appropriate to

12 hear this witness as a live witness, anything about it in the transcript.

13 And this was included in the summary of the OTP.

14 Therefore, we want to ask both parties to concentrate on the

15 relevant issues; and in doing so, probably not proceed introducing

16 documents through a witness. It may be that sometimes it's of assistance

17 that an already introduced document will be presented to a witness, and on

18 this basis, of course, questions can be put to this witness. But not to

19 introduce through a witness because once again, also in the case before

20 us, having introduced the entire document on the report of the CSCE

21 mission to inspect missions of places of detention of Bosnia-Herzegovina

22 from 29 August to 4 August, once again, it opens Pandora's box for all the

23 questions for all the areas contained in this report. And I can't see any

24 legal basis to stop the Defence to ask, from our point of view, irrelevant

25 questions because they are included in this report.

1 Nevertheless, I would ask of the Defence in this case, put it this

2 way, to come down to earth. It's not for me to evaluate at this point in

3 time the relevance of the witness's testimony. But it could be that the

4 testimony as such is relatively -- has relatively limited probative value,

5 and therefore, I don't believe that in the concrete case, we are seized

6 now with, it's necessary and it's relevant to ask all the questions on

7 this killing or murder. It happened evidently far, far -- far, far would

8 be the wrong word, but not in the area of our fourth amended indictment.

9 And therefore, indeed, we can't see - we discussed it during the break -

10 any relevance in this respect. And therefore, we would ask you to refrain

11 from touching upon this area of this killing of this person. And please,

12 try to show from your side some self-restraint and address those questions

13 really relevant on the basis of the fourth amended indictment.

14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think I really ought to make some

15 comment about what Your Honour has just said. The first is this: We

16 weren't aware why Your Honours wanted to hear it, except obviously from

17 the point of view that he met Stakic. But all that he could say is what

18 is contained in the evidence of that meeting note made by Mr. McLeod.

19 That's why I didn't take him through it again. Secondly, Your Honour, the

20 report of the mission, firstly, they are not his superiors. He was sent

21 as a guide to this mission, but they are, in no sense, his superiors. The

22 report relates directly to things he witnessed in part and did seem to us

23 that a report on Trnopolje and the like is relevant to this case.

24 Now, I could have of course excised all the parts that don't bear

25 on it, but it seemed to me that it was preferable that the whole report

1 went before Your Honours with only the parts that were relevant being

2 read. Can I say finally this, on this matter. If Your Honours feel that

3 evidence we are calling is not relevant, then if Your Honours would

4 indicate that and then perhaps hear our argument on it, or submissions,

5 then we would know where we were.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The reasons for hearing the witness before us, I

7 just stated. And I'm afraid it is not an evaluation and no comment, but

8 the very short summary seems, to a certain extent, misleading based on the

9 answers we received yesterday. Ask it is only very limited evidence we

10 have really related to Dr. Stakic, and people having seen, heard, spoken

11 with Dr. Stakic. And therefore, it is necessary to hear everybody

12 available for these purposes.

13 As regards the second issue, of course that what the witness --

14 last witness had to tell us was relevant, but the way it is presented,

15 over two days, that's our concern.

16 MS. KORNER: In chief, Your Honour, he finished in three hours or

17 whatever yesterday.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, no. The witness before, when we had the

19 odyssey from one point to the other where the witness found corpses and

20 collected these corpses. And we discussed this in depth and came to the

21 conclusion this could have been done indeed, as it was indicated on the

22 summary, within one and a half hours.

23 MS. KORNER: I take full responsibility for that. I'm sorry. My

24 instructions to Ms. Sutherland were that the details should be gone into,

25 so that is entirely my responsibility, and -- it's not Ms. Sutherland's

1 fault; it's my fault.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's not the question to apologise. It is only

3 the question how to proceed in future, and when we are confronted and this

4 witness has made all efforts to come here to The Hague, I think it is also

5 understandable from the point of view of the accused and the Defence, that

6 the Judges can't interfere and say, as it would be normal in a criminal

7 court: "It's no longer relevant, and thank you for your information."

8 Because there, we have to take into account our peacekeeping mission, and

9 this means also to hear a witness coming here to The Hague on issues which

10 are not directly relevant for the case before us, because it's a story the

11 witness has to tell us from his own suffering and his own experience. But

12 I would ask the parties, both parties in future, really, to concentrate on

13 the main and the core issues of this case. Otherwise, we run out of the

14 limits given indeed by the relevance as to the fourth amended indictment.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may, Your Honour, thank you, and obviously the

16 Defence respects the ruling and the decision by the Court. However, we

17 are placed in a somewhat difficult situation when witnesses do appear, we,

18 the Defence, and particularly myself, seem to be offered some constructive

19 criticism by my learned friends of the OTP. They suggest quite vehemently

20 that we should present our evidence during the period of time at which

21 we're conducting our cross-examination under Rule 90(H). When we try to

22 do that, they scream and yell it's not relevant. We think respectfully

23 that the events in the surrounding areas within the relevant time period

24 are necessary for purposes of establishing a complete picture. It also,

25 without going into the detail, may have impact, I personally believe it

1 has a great impact, on some of the witnesses that the OTP has called,

2 specifically the very first witness they called when the trial commenced

3 on the 16th of April of this year.

4 My next point is that this is a document that we saw here which

5 references a meeting that was held in The Hague in 1991. I agree that it

6 is, from the scope of time, somewhat far afield from the time of the

7 indictment. However, there's an exhibit that the Court marked after we

8 withdrew it that counsel raised an issue as to its authenticity because

9 that very meeting was mentioned in the SDA minutes. And from that, one

10 would think that the minutes were created subsequent as opposed to

11 contemporaneous with the meeting being held, and then we learn now,

12 despite the OTP's strenuous objection saying it was offered by Defence

13 counsel in another case and that were questions raised about the

14 authenticity about that document, The Hague and the United Nations were

15 indeed involved at least seemingly so from some of these documents, as

16 early as November 1991. And this is an opportunity that we have from this

17 witness who was briefed on these matters to enlighten us on the exhibit

18 that was marked I think as J3, I believe -- I believe that's the document,

19 I could get that to verify it. And again it doesn't necessarily go

20 specifically to our defence. That document has been discussed. We didn't

21 offer it into evidence. It was provided to us. They thought it was shed

22 some light on the meetings and the parties involved, namely the SDA. So

23 we asked a question on that. I certainly will not ask any questions any

24 more, and I understand the Court's ruling on that with respect to the

25 monitor but we have other issues that are raised specifically in this

1 report that I must ask the witness. I expect fully to conclude today in

2 ample time.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I think you understood from our

4 remark that the document as such is, of course, of importance, and indeed,

5 the -- I don't believe that it's contested in this courtroom that the

6 period immediately, say, from the end of 1990 onwards is, of course,

7 relevant for the case. And on the basis of this, I believe we can

8 continue now. And may the witness be brought in again. But please,

9 remember your own words on opinion witnesses.

10 [The witness entered court]

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Defence may then proceed, please.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mayhew. Sir, if I can just back up a little bit

14 and ask you a question with respect to the procedure that you followed in

15 April and May of 1992 while in Bosnia-Herzegovina, primarily in the

16 Prijedor area, was it your policy and practice, sir, to take notes and to

17 keep daily recordation of meetings that you had with various ethnic

18 groups?

19 A. Yes, we would take notes during the meetings and translate the

20 relevant parts of them into our reports back to Zagreb via the regional

21 centre in Sarajevo. My own personal practice was to keep a minimum of

22 notes after that, after they had been used for the purpose of the evening

23 report.

24 Q. Would there be any scenario where you had a meeting with let's say

25 all three of the ethnic groups in Prijedor in April and May of 1992 where

1 notes of that meeting or a report summarising that meeting would not have

2 been made?

3 A. I can't imagine it, unless by chance it was an ad hoc meeting,

4 very short and insubstantial on the roadside because of a chance meeting.

5 But I don't recall any such occasion.

6 Q. It would be a highly unlikely that you would have a roadside

7 meeting with all three ethnic groups. Correct?

8 A. I agree.

9 Q. Now, on page 14 of yesterday's transcript, you discuss a meeting

10 that was held in April and May, line -- page 14, line 9 through 19 is the

11 essence of that. You state there that "at that point, in April, May, we

12 met with the council of the district, and in particular the three leaders

13 of the three ethnic groups within the council, including the mayor." Just

14 to put it in perspective for you. Do you, as you sit here today, sir,

15 recall having a meeting in April and May in Prijedor in 1992 with the

16 three ethnic groups?

17 A. I stand by the wording you just read out from yesterday.

18 Q. Would you, sir, have -- is it fair to say, sir, there exists or to

19 your knowledge would there exist a report which describes in detail what

20 was said at the various groups at that meeting in April or May of 1992?

21 A. There is almost certainly -- there is almost certainly a report of

22 that meeting. How much detail it went into in the official report, I'm

23 not sure. It might -- we might have judged it, part of the ongoing

24 dialogue, and therefore not necessary to report in detail. But it is a

25 more or less unthinkable that we would not describe that meeting to some

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 extent in our official report of that evening.

2 Q. In preparation for your testimony here, do you recall reviewing

3 that report at the end of that meeting with those three ethnic groups in

4 April and May of 1992?

5 A. I'm afraid as you've already noticed, I have read a number of

6 reports both ten years ago and just recently. Yes, I have read - you're

7 quite right - I have read a report by Charles McLeod of at least one such

8 meeting.

9 Q. Okay. Do you recall in that report whether or not there was a

10 discussion as to who was present and what was said?

11 A. It would be helpful for me at this point to have in front of me

12 any such report that's available to the Court.

13 Q. I'm not sure, sir, if --

14 MS. KORNER: I think there is some confusion. As I explained with

15 Mr. McLeod, we were depending on what ECMM could find from its archives.

16 I think there's confusion between the two meetings because as far as I

17 know, Mr. Mayhew has not seen any report, through us, that relates to a

18 meeting held before he left in May. So McLeod reports are all the ones at

19 the end of August.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.

22 MR. OSTOJIC:

23 Q. Help me with this, Mr. Mayhew, if you may, who was it that

24 determined when you left the Zagreb or Croatian front line and moved to

25 the Bosnian and the Serb area, who decided that the three important places

1 which you would visit would be Banja Luka, Prijedor, and Derventa?

2 A. That would have been a decision made in Banja Luka by the team

3 whose leader at that time, I think, was Dave Holt [phoen].

4 Q. Do you recall what the basis of selecting Prijedor as one of the

5 three areas was?

6 A. No, but I can guess intelligently if you would like me to.

7 Q. Well, unfortunately, the Court, I believe, or at least typically,

8 we don't like people to guess, and we don't like speculation, or at least

9 I don't. So to the extent that you wish to tell us, if you have a

10 reasonable basis for it, you can share that with us. But I hesitate to

11 inquire further of a question when it's followed by an answer involving

12 either speculation or guess. So perhaps I should restate the question.

13 If you have a reasonable understanding as to the basis why Prijedor was

14 selected, you could share that with us if you may.

15 A. It is obvious when you study the area that there are major centres

16 of population. And it would be a sensible practice, in any such mission,

17 to go to the major centres of population and start by focussing on those

18 which have worse tensions than the others, and which are accessible.

19 Q. Is it fair to say, sir, that in April and May of 1992, as you sit

20 here, you do not recall any significant exchanges, in fact, no exchanges

21 with military commanders in Prijedor area?

22 A. Let me think about that for a moment. I do not recall any

23 exchanges with military commanders in the Prijedor area.

24 Q. And again --

25 A. But I would be corrected by reports, as usual. If I wrote it,

1 then it will be an accurate report of what happened. So if you find a

2 report which says I did, then that will refresh my memory.

3 Q. And the period of time that we're discussing, sir, is April and

4 May of 1992, just so that we're clear. Correct?

5 A. Yes, I'm clear about that.

6 Q. Sir, isn't it true that the reason that there was no significant

7 or any exchanges whatsoever with the military commanders in Prijedor area

8 in April and May of 1992 was because at that stage, any potential crisis

9 in the Prijedor area was merely a political one and did not involve the

10 military at all?

11 A. I would say that it was primarily a political one. The military,

12 of course, were becoming involved in events generally across the north

13 Bosnia area. But the reason for our focussing on political meetings was

14 that it was indeed a primarily political problem at that stage.

15 Q. Do you, sir, have a date at which the time period in which you

16 left the Bosnian area or the Prijedor area in May of 1992?

17 A. The record will have to remind me of the date that we left.

18 Q. In the time period that you were there in April and May of 1992,

19 did you experience or see or do you have any comments relating to violence

20 in Prijedor, having been broken out, or breaking out?

21 A. Yes, we were told in that meeting with the council of some

22 violence, as I recall.

23 Q. By whom?

24 A. Again, it would be wise to refer to the record. As I recall, all

25 three sides wished to make it known that the other -- one other side or

1 both other sides were primarily responsible for any increase in tension or

2 violence.

3 Q. Well, then let's check the record if you don't mind.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: If I can have the Court instruct the usher to

5 provide the witness with his statement dated March 14th through 15th,

6 2000, starting with the Bate stamp 00928862.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please do so.

8 THE REGISTRAR: If I may remind the witness and the counsel to

9 pause between question and answer.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

11 Q. Directing your attention, sir, to page 4 of your report which has

12 two ERN numbers on the top right-hand corner, one is numbered 00928865,

13 and the other Bate stamp, ERN number is reflected as being 02120714.

14 A. My copy only has the first of those numbers.

15 Q. And directing your attention, sir, to the third full paragraph on

16 page 4 of your witness statement, and there on the last sentence it

17 states, at least in March of 2000, that you were unable to comment on the

18 violence in Prijedor as: "I was no longer involved in Prijedor by the

19 time that violence had broken out there."

20 Can you share with us, sir, whether the statement that you

21 provided to the OTP in March of 2000 is accurate in connection with this

22 specific sentence or that which you shared with us moments ago, that you

23 did recall that violence in Prijedor was present, or at least allegations

24 were made of it, can you tell us which one of those two is accurate and

25 correct?

1 A. They are both accurate, and I can explain.

2 Q. Please do.

3 A. I am unable to comment on the violence in Prijedor as I was no

4 longer involved in Prijedor by the time that violence had broken out

5 there. This statement means that I'm referring to serious major acts of

6 violence, that's to say, essentially, the beginnings of a war. And I was

7 no longer involved in Prijedor by the time that that kind of violence had

8 broken out there. My statement of a moment ago is also accurate that it

9 was reported to us, as I recall, in that council meeting that there had

10 been some small and isolated acts of violence which were nevertheless

11 politically significant. And we took note that that had happened. But

12 such small acts involving maybe very small numbers of people were so

13 common throughout the area, even before then, that I didn't describe that,

14 I didn't include that in my word "violence" on page 4 of my report.

15 Q. Okay. Earlier today you also told us that with respect to having

16 exchanges with the military commanders in the Prijedor area, and it being

17 in fact a political crisis, if you will, as opposed to a military crisis,

18 and then you shared with us on page 16 of your testimony yesterday, page

19 4, that the problem was primarily a political problem -- line 4 -- it was

20 becoming a military problem, or became later a military problem. And so

21 it was natural that we should go to the political leaders first." On line

22 6 of the transcript yesterday.

23 If you compare that with the paragraph immediately preceding

24 paragraph 3 on page 4 that you have before you, where in fact you state -

25 it's in the second sentence of that second paragraph - that the reason

1 that there were not -- you don't recall any significant exchanges with

2 military commanders in the Banja Luka and Prijedor areas in April and May

3 of 1992, or early May, was that "at that stage, the crisis was not a

4 military one, but rather a political one."

5 Is your testimony now, sir, that it was primarily a political

6 problem and your statement of the year 2000 seems to indicate it was

7 clearly a political problem and not involving the military at all. And if

8 you can help me reconcile the two.

9 A. The two are easily reconcilable. There is a short sentence on

10 page 4 of my report which does not expand or go into detail or explain.

11 It does not say it was "merely" or "only" or "clearly," to use your word

12 just now, a political one. It says it was not a military, but rather

13 political. That's not a claim of exclusivity, and it is clearly

14 consistent with my more expanded remarks elsewhere.

15 Q. In your testimony yesterday, I believe you told us that you were

16 unaware of any political takeover by the SDS at the end of April 1992.

17 Nowhere in your report can I find that you discuss there was a political

18 takeover by any ethnic group of the Municipal Assembly during that time

19 period. Can you tell us why not?

20 A. If we were aware at the time of a political takeover, we would,

21 again, 99 per cent certainty have included it in our reports. So if there

22 is a report in existence which would have -- which describes that, then we

23 were aware of it. As I mentioned earlier, it appears that not every daily

24 report is in the possession of the Court.

25 Q. Put that aside for a moment. On page 22 of yesterday's

1 transcript, lines 10 through 13, you were asked specifically whether or

2 not you were aware at any stage before you left in May of a takeover that

3 had occurred in Prijedor by the SDS. The answer, on page 22, line 13: "I

4 don't remember that."

5 My question to you, sir, is this: I don't see it in any of the

6 reports. Is it your testimony that the Muslims and the political group

7 that represented the Muslim community, the SDA party, that you claim you

8 met with in April and May of 1992 would not have found that to be a

9 significant event and would not have, therefore, shared that event with

10 you?

11 A. If there had been a political takeover, and if we had met with the

12 Muslim leadership, quite clearly, it would have been something they would

13 have told us.

14 Q. Not if you met; you told us you met with all three ethnic groups.

15 Right? There's no doubt about that. Correct?

16 A. May I clarify my remarks, in that case.

17 Q. Of course.

18 A. If it's not in the record from that meeting, then it hadn't

19 happened by that meeting, or most certainly. What I meant was if we had

20 met subsequently with the Muslim leader, which was your question, you

21 didn't ask subsequently, but if we had met with a Muslim leader including

22 any other time, of course they would have told us and we would have been

23 aware probably through other channels also.

24 Q. But as you sit here, you don't have a recollection of that

25 takeover occurring; correct?

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. You mention on page 14, as we previously cited, that there was a

3 meeting in April and May with the council of the district. Can you

4 describe for me what it is that you coin as "council of the district" on

5 page 14, line 10?

6 A. I don't recall the precise name of the body. I do recall that it

7 contained the mayor of Prijedor and his council. Now the precise nature

8 of that body, I'm afraid it's too long ago for me to be able to explain it

9 to you.

10 Q. Can you tell us the name of that individual mayor and any of the

11 participants who were in this council that you met with?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Do you know, sir, that in Prijedor and in any village or town or

14 city in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 there existed no such entity as a

15 "mayor" of a town? Were you aware of that?

16 A. Prijedor can be used either to describe the town or the

17 municipality in which it lies. If what you say is true, then the mayor of

18 Prijedor presumably refers to the mayor of Prijedor Municipality.

19 Q. Are you aware, sir, that there is no such provision in any statute

20 or law which has a position for "mayor" of Prijedor Municipality?

21 A. I've already explained that the exact terms and descriptions, I

22 don't recall.

23 Q. Can you tell me if subsequent to this meeting in April and May of

24 1992 you held any other meetings with any members of the Muslim ethnic

25 group?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. It's very likely that we did. We were always trying to meet with

2 a representative sample of all three ethnic groups.

3 Q. As you sit here, sir, do you remember on how many occasions

4 subsequent to this meeting where all three ethnic groups were represented,

5 how many times you would have met with Muslim representatives,

6 exclusively?

7 A. I don't remember.

8 Q. Do you have any idea whether it was more than one, or can you as

9 you sit here only think of one?

10 A. No, I can't remember because the details of our daily work are now

11 a matter of record, rather than my memory.

12 Q. After leaving the region in May of 1992, you were stationed back

13 in Zagreb or in Sarajevo?

14 A. After May 1992, back in Zagreb for most of the time.

15 Q. During that time period, sir, did you do any work at all, related

16 to the area of Prijedor Municipality, even though you were distantly and

17 physically removed from the area?

18 A. I continued to follow the Bosnian reports from the whole of

19 Bosnia, including all parts of Bosnia.

20 Q. From whom would you receive any such reports that you would be

21 following?

22 A. The ECMM monitor teams had evacuated. And until later on, and I

23 don't remember the exact date, we had no ECMM source of information from

24 within Bosnia. However, we actively built up links with other

25 international organisations, and we tried to keep in touch with the

1 situation through those and any other means, including the press that were

2 available to us.

3 Q. Would you have maintained your relationships with the various

4 ethnic groups that you had previously met in the Prijedor region?

5 A. We tried to retain communications with everyone as far as

6 communications allowed. And I do not recall, in detail, the people with

7 whom we were able to remain in contact. But I do recall that our contacts

8 were very restricted indeed, to the extent that we had difficulty

9 sometimes contacting the Banja Luka authorities. And I think it was even

10 harder still to be in contact with others who were less easy to

11 communicate with.

12 Q. Were you aware during your time in the Prijedor Municipality in

13 April and May of 1992 whether there was approximately seven to 10.000

14 Serbian refugees that were in the area of Trnopolje and the town of

15 Prijedor who came from Croatia?

16 A. I'm afraid I don't remember about that detail.

17 Q. You would agree with me that that's a significant number, wouldn't

18 you?

19 A. Yes, by detail, I mean not that it's insignificant, I simply mean

20 that that is one of the many facts we were dealing with.

21 Q. At any time, sir, did you verify the fact that the Croatians

22 expelled and displaced seven to 10.000 Serbs from Croatia and its borders,

23 and that those seven to 10.000 found their way in the Prijedor

24 Municipality? Did you try to verify that fact at any time?

25 A. We certainly verified many expulsions of Serb civilians from

1 Croatia, and where we could, we tried to follow the subsequent events.

2 But our primary concern was to report on the fact of expulsion, and our

3 resources did not permit us to follow in most cases, as I recall, the

4 destination of each group because there were many people going in many,

5 many directions. And we did it -- so I can't comment on that group. But

6 I do recall much investigation of expulsions from Croatia.

7 Q. Help me with this, if you can: If you were and part of your

8 duties was to go in the Prijedor area and to -- although a complex

9 situation as you yourself described- to have a complete understanding of

10 the situation and to have an appreciation for all three ethnic sides, did

11 you at any time, sir, interview any of the refugees that were in the

12 Prijedor Municipality in April and May of 1992?

13 A. I don't remember. Again, that's for our daily work. We would

14 have tried to do so. Our time was limited. The situation was breaking

15 down. And so as I mentioned earlier, we had to ruthlessly prioritise our

16 work, so as to be certain that we had the maximum possible effect on the

17 whole situation. And that meant prioritising the leaders on all three

18 sides and keeping informed where time permitted with random visits or

19 premeditated visits to ordinary families, including refugee families.

20 Q. What was your impression, if any, at that time as to the influx or

21 these refugees that came from Croatia, Serbian refugees, in the

22 Municipality of Prijedor? What effect, if any, did they have on the

23 political situation that was existing in April and May of 1992?

24 A. I don't remember the effect of that particular group, as I have

25 explained. But the overall effect of Serb refugees arriving was to cause

1 stress and fear and dismay among the Serb population from that area.

2 Q. And did you at any time, sir, come across a scenario where some of

3 these refugees, if you will, who came acted in a revenge against the

4 Muslim population?

5 A. Again --

6 Q. As a result of actually being kicked out and expelled from

7 Croatia?

8 A. I don't remember.

9 Q. I'd like, if I may, to turn now to this provisionally identified

10 exhibit that you should still have in front of you, S217, please. I'll

11 try to limit it to the parts that you read, although you read --

12 A. May I make a comment on that, please, to the Court. I'd like to

13 just apologise for my momentary earlier confusion on the question of the

14 parts of the CSCE report and to clarify that since the only part that I

15 now realise -- the only part that I had not read was an attached document

16 containing the text of an ICRC agreement, my comments on the report do

17 apply to all parts of the report written by the CSCE team.

18 Q. Thank you. If you turn to Part I of that report, paragraph number

19 2, which is approximately the fifth page or so. It has the ERN number

20 00999576, second paragraph, the middle section of that paragraph: "On the

21 contrary, we are unanimous that we saw only part of the picture, but we

22 did see a lot and spoke with many people including some hundreds of

23 prisoners. We are aware that the picture, as we saw it, is subject to

24 fluctuation."

25 Do you agree or disagree with that statement in the report?

1 A. Yes, I fully agree.

2 Q. Can you explain to me what it means when they say: "is subject to

3 fluctuation"?

4 A. I've mentioned already that the situation was fast changing.

5 Q. And that's what it means?

6 A. You will have to ask the authors for a fuller explanation. I

7 would guess that that is a major part of what it means, but I thought you

8 didn't like me to guess. I can -- I mean, "fluctuation" in this context

9 is, of course, referring to the fluctuation in the situation of detention

10 centres, which of course relate closely to the fluctuation or the changing

11 circumstances outside those centres. And it's a matter of record that the

12 numbers of people in those centres -- numbers of people in those centres

13 did change.

14 Q. Thank you. It also states that you or the group "interviewed

15 hundreds of prisoners." Do you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you tell me with respect to the Prijedor Municipality and the

18 camps that were alleged to have been established there, namely Trnopolje,

19 can you tell me how many prisoners in Trnopolje were actually interviewed

20 by you or the CSCE?

21 A. CSCE.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 A. I can't speak for the exact number of detainees interviewed by the

24 CSCE mission because we all split up and fanned out through the camp.

25 Myself, I spoke to approximately -- of the order of 6 to 15 members of the

1 camp, as far as I recall.

2 Q. At the Trnopolje camp, sir?

3 A. At Trnopolje.

4 Q. Can you tell us how many prisoners did you interview who were in

5 the Manjaca camp?

6 A. Are you talking about me personally?

7 Q. Was your answer relating to you personally or to the entire group?

8 A. I said that myself, I spoke to between 6 and 15 at Trnopolje.

9 Q. And Manjaca yourself. We're only interested to learn your

10 personal observations and experiences while you were there at that time.

11 How many would you have interviewed?

12 A. Approximately 4, possibly a few more than 4. And the nature of

13 those interviews was very different. Snatched conversations out of

14 earshot of the guards which was only possible for, say, 30 seconds at a

15 time.

16 Q. Can you tell us how long, while you were at Trnopolje, how long

17 did your visit at the Trnopolje camp take? A day, two days?

18 A. I don't remember. No, it was within one day. But it was a matter

19 of, let us say, one to two hours approximately.

20 Q. Do you recall if the visit to Trnopolje followed the visit to the

21 Manjaca camp?

22 A. We have the document here. May I refer to it?

23 Q. Please do.

24 A. Do you happen to know where it's stated?

25 Q. I don't recall, at the moment.

1 Maybe just to speed it along, just accept it as true, and my

2 learned friend will object and clarify it. I'm not trying to mislead you

3 on it. That's my recollection of how the process went.

4 A. I'll accept what the report says. That's fine.

5 Q. Would you agree with me that the Trnopolje camp and the Manjaca

6 military camp were strikingly different in many respects? One, at

7 Manjaca, there was a barbed wire fence. At Trnopolje, there was not a

8 barbed wire fence.

9 A. Sorry, are you pausing, or is that the end of your question?

10 Q. End of that part of the question, there are other subsections

11 within that question.

12 A. That is correct. We noticed that the barbed wire fence had been

13 recently removed from Trnopolje.

14 Q. Did you at any time, sir, investigate when the barbed wire -- are

15 you saying it was a barbed wire fence or just a wire fence? Because in

16 your report you never mention, and we can look through your report, that

17 there was ever a barbed wire fence at Trnopolje. As you sit here, I want

18 your recollection as to whether or not you believe there was a barbed wire

19 fence at Trnopolje that surrounded the entire school or compound?

20 A. As I've mentioned, the fence was not there once we arrived. And

21 therefore, I couldn't tell you whether it was a barbed wire or wire. It

22 would be unusual a camp to have wire other than barbed wire, which is why

23 I mentioned barbed wire.

24 Q. Would it be unusual, sir, for witnesses to claim that they

25 actually entered and exited Trnopolje camp in July and August 1992 on

1 numerous occasions if there were barbed wire fence being surrounding the

2 entire complex? That would truly be an unbelievable thing, wouldn't it?

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Isn't it a hypothetical question? Therefore,

4 please, either rephrase or...

5 MR. OSTOJIC:

6 Q. Would you expect, sir, that a person can get in and out of the

7 camp by slipping through or between the barbed wire fencing if in fact

8 it's true that Trnopolje, that there existed barbed wire fence surrounding

9 the entire centre?

10 MS. KORNER: Again --

11 A. I'm pausing for the.

12 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Again, it's still a hypothetical question,

13 what somebody could or could not do, whether there was or not barbed wire.

14 This witness can't really assist.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: 90(H), Your Honour, and I don't want to quote my

16 opposing counsel at all, requires us to put facts at issue if we deem that

17 they are relevant. And in fact, if I recall, counsel was adamant in

18 instructing us and lecturing me on how the rule should be applied. And in

19 every instance if there's an occasion that we could provide a defence

20 which may go to any of the issues, they invited us to present that to the

21 witness. We're simply providing that. It's not a hypothetical. And --

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The witness has clearly stated that he hasn't

23 seen a fence or barbed wire fence or whatsoever fence. And you wanted to

24 lay it in the direction of fence totally around this, we have heard a lot

25 of evidence on this. I think it was clear enough the answer the witness

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 hasn't seen such a fence. Full stop.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

3 Q. Also, when you look at the striking difference between Manjaca

4 camp and Trnopolje, did you ever learn that in Trnopolje, there was a

5 watch tower with watch guards securing the area in Trnopolje, whereas in

6 Manjaca, as you clearly state, there was a watch tower and security was

7 actually very intense?

8 A. Yes, I've reported that there were guard posts, ground-level guard

9 posts, not a tower, at Trnopolje. I don't remember a tower, and if my

10 report doesn't state one, it is probable that there was not one there.

11 Q. In Manjaca, when you visited it, there were German shepherds also

12 in the camp. Do you remember hearing from the prisoners who shared with

13 you, that there were no such guard dogs every present?

14 A. It was 6 to 15 interviewees. I don't remember any conversation

15 about dogs with them.

16 Q. Help me with this: Is it your testimony that Trnopolje and

17 Manjaca were the same in both the way security was provided and both the

18 way the camp was set up, or were they different?

19 A. Different.

20 Q. Strikingly different, sir?

21 A. Yes, particularly in the question of access, and in the demeanour

22 of the detainees.

23 Q. Expand on what you mean when you say: "particularly with respect

24 to access"?

25 A. I think I've covered it in my answer about the fence. We were

1 not -- the reports mention accounts of who could leave the camp and who

2 could stay. And to my recollection, those reports are accurate.

3 Q. Isn't it true that in Trnopolje, family and friends were permitted

4 to visit the members within the camp and were allowed to bring in food,

5 water, clothing supplies, et cetera?

6 A. Yes, that is my recollection.

7 Q. Is that not yet another striking difference between the Trnopolje

8 centre and the Manjaca military camp?

9 A. Yes, I think so. The reason I hesitate is that I can't be

10 completely certain in my memory that no relatives could visit Manjaca

11 camp. Again, the report will remind me.

12 Q. Let's turn to page 13 of the CSCE mission report which has the

13 Bate stamp number 00999584, and the bottom portion discusses the ICRC and

14 family visits. Do you see that there?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Does it mention there anywhere that, in fact, in other camps,

17 family and friends were permitted to visit, or does it clearly state:

18 "With the exception of Trnopolje and perhaps one or two other camps and

19 centres, families and friends are not permitted to visit."

20 A. It does state what you say it states.

21 Q. Do you have an independent recollection, sir, as to whether or not

22 family and friends were permitted to visit detainees at the Manjaca

23 military camp?

24 A. No, as I have already stated.

25 Q. Let me turn to an annex, annex B of the report, just for purposes

1 of clarification, I have a couple questions in connection with this annex

2 B. Let me know when you've reached that point, sir.

3 A. I'm at that page now.

4 Q. With respect to the camps that are listed which contain Serbs in

5 Bosnia and Herzegovina, do you know if there was any verification done by

6 your team or the CSCE to verify whether or not those camps existed where

7 Serbs were held as prisoners?

8 A. Yes, there was at least one visit, and I imagine possibly a number

9 of others by ECMM staff to a camp containing Serb civilian prisoners.

10 Q. And where was that, sir?

11 A. I don't remember the name of the place. But I remember seeing the

12 report, including possibly one of the reports that the Court has seen. I

13 don't know.

14 Q. Let's look at that second page of that annex B and look down at

15 the prison in Sarajevo which states or, in essence, states that about 600

16 Serbs were confined there. Correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. What does that mean in parenthesis after that paragraph when it

19 says "confirmed"?

20 A. I imagine it means that the CSCE team had confirmed that

21 themselves.

22 Q. Can you help me with this: What's the date that it was confirmed,

23 or the date in which these Serbs were held prisoner in Sarajevo?

24 A. This is a list given by Mr. Karadzic, according to page 20, the

25 first page of the annex, to the CSCE mission. And therefore, it is likely

1 to mean that at the date when Mr. Karadzic handed over this list, those

2 Serbs were believed by him to be in detention and confirmed, I'm assuming,

3 by the team, though possibly through -- well, it's possible that they had

4 asked the ICRC and the ICRC had confirmed that. But the ICRC may have

5 refused to confirm or deny that. So that is why I think it probable that

6 the team had confirmed with their own eyes.

7 Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that it's more than just a possibility;

8 it's more likely than not, since it has in parenthesis under these prison

9 camps in Sarajevo with Serbs captured in them that it puts confirmed that

10 indeed they verified the existence of that camp. Correct?

11 A. I didn't say it was a possibility, but probable. And it certainly

12 means that they verified it to their satisfaction that those Serbs were in

13 that prison.

14 Q. Having been in Zagreb and Prijedor, did you confirm or at any time

15 try to verify the existence of this fact that Serb civilians were held in

16 prison in Sarajevo?

17 A. I don't remember a confirmation of Sarajevo prisoners by the ECMM.

18 At the time of this report, of course, it was no longer necessary because

19 it had been independently verified.

20 Q. If you flip to the next page, sir, which has the Bate stamp number

21 00999593, and I'm really directing your attention to the last portion of

22 that where again they discuss 600 Serbs captured in the central prison in

23 Sarajevo. Do you see that? Three lines from the bottom?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. It goes on to say who the commander of the camp; and then it

1 identifies them both as being a senior and also prominent member of the

2 SDA which is the Democratic Action Party of the Muslim ethnic group.

3 Correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Who was also a representative in the assembly of the former

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina which follows on the next page of that document. Do

7 you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you know, sir, from this report - it's difficult for me to

10 understand - whether that was in fact verified that the commander of the

11 camp was Safet Isovic or this was an allegation that someone called Safet

12 Isovic was the camp commander where 600 Serb civilians were held?

13 A. I can't immediately see for sure which of the two options is the

14 case. The heading of that section is that this is a list given by

15 Mr. Karadzic, and it's not clear from a quick reading just now whether

16 this final paragraph of Section 1 is a comment by the team or a reported

17 claim by Mr. Karadzic.

18 Q. Following on that page, meaning that next page, it discusses 6.000

19 Serbs being killed, and that concentration camps were established by a

20 Croatian/Muslim coalition, and the numbers increased every day. Most of

21 them captured are women and children. Based on your duties, sir, there,

22 do you recall ever being briefed about that fact or that issue?

23 A. I don't recall it, but we would have received a copy of this

24 report, and it would have been read within the mission and probably read

25 by myself, although I can't be completely certain of that.

1 Q. As you sit here, do you know how many camps this Croatian/Muslim

2 coalition established and when?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Do you know if this Croatian/Muslim coalition established any

5 camps in the first quarter of 1992, namely, January, February, and March?

6 A. I don't know, and I would have to defer to reports.

7 Q. If you can return to annex C, please. Annex C, sir - and you're

8 welcome to read the entire thing because you've also told us you already

9 reviewed it - it discusses the long-term hopes of some of the people that

10 were interviewed by the CSCE mission. As you can see on that second

11 paragraph, the last full sentence, do you agree with that, sir, that "no

12 one wishes in present circumstances to return to their homes in Western

13 Bosnia because the local administration cannot and will not guarantee

14 their physical security."

15 A. Yes, I agree with that.

16 Q. Help me with this, when you were interviewing and discussing with

17 these detainees in Trnopolje, did they also express that to you, that they

18 did not want to return home because they weren't given this guarantee?

19 A. I don't recall the exact details, but this was my general

20 impression from those times.

21 Q. You discussed yesterday at page 30 of your testimony, some

22 conclusions that were drawn, and specifically you state that you disagreed

23 or who have preferred, I should say, my apologies, that the phrase "by

24 whatever method is available," that that certainly was a quote that you

25 would not have liked to use, but you would have like to have used a

1 different quote, and that is "if the authorities truly wanted whatever

2 method --

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Page 30, Your Honour, I'm sorry line 19.

4 Q. -- And if the authorities truly wanted whatever method, they could

5 have already transported them to the border or taken other measures. So I

6 would have probably replaced that phrase with something like `whatever

7 method they could get away with' or and possible have allowed some room

8 for a different of opinion among the Bosnian Serb leadership. After all,

9 not everyone was certain that 100 per cent of the Muslim population had to

10 go." And then you proceed.

11 My question with respect to that, sir, is having been there, both

12 in April and May of 1992, and returning to the area again in August and

13 September of 1992, had the Serb authorities wanted to kick out, expel,

14 even murder the detainees within the alleged camps that existed, what

15 prevented them from doing that?

16 A. Well, again, I would be giving my opinion of their likely

17 motivations. And is that what you're asking?

18 Q. We know --

19 MR. OSTOJIC: Go ahead, Your Honour. I'm sorry.

20 Q. I'm asking you this, sir, and maybe I'll rephrase the question.

21 The Serbs were in control in the area at that time. If they had detained

22 the individuals as you've identified in your reports and have testified

23 here yesterday and today, what prevented them from expelling those

24 individuals as you told us yesterday, what prevented them from doing that

25 in early May, June, July, or August of 1992?

1 A. If they had wanted to expel them all, physically, nothing

2 prevented them. Politically, public opinion, world opinion prevented

3 them. That is, if they wanted to. And as you've quoted my remarks

4 yesterday, it was not clear to me that there was a unanimous single

5 political vision. And there will have been disagreements among the

6 authorities as to their aims. So it is questionable, highly questionable,

7 if they wanted to. But I'm assuming that your question assumes if they

8 wanted, what could have prevented them? And the answer is political,

9 rather than physical.

10 Q. I know it's not a concern for you, but there's some allegations

11 with respect to that, and that's why I'm asking you that.

12 If the Serbian authorities wanted to or had the intent to commit

13 mass massacres of the individuals they detained in these camps such as

14 Trnopolje, what prevented them from doing it in May, June, July, and

15 August of 1992?

16 A. Physically, nothing. They had guns and the people didn't.

17 Q. They are people, too.

18 A. Yes. So, physically, nothing. It is physically possible. But

19 politically, it would have been disastrous for them. And I am really

20 hesitating here to enter into speculation as to their motivations. We all

21 know that a humane person would never wish to do that. But I can't --

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please do so. Refrain from speculations.

23 THE WITNESS: So I hesitate to go further in answering the

24 question as you seem to expect me to do.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. I'm not sure, Your Honour, what time

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 you'd like to take a break. It may be a convenient time.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The trial stands adjourned until ten minutes

3 past 6.00.

4 --- Recess taken at 5.38 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mayhew. If I can direct your attention, sir, again

9 to the annex we were just discussing -- or previously discussing, which is

10 annex B, I'll give you the ERN number, or, as I say, Bate stamp number

11 00999593, remember we talked about that Mr. Safet Isovic below. In the

12 centre of that, or immediately above that reference, sir, there's a

13 discussion of a chief investigator who was also purportedly involved in

14 one of the camps that Serbian civilians were detained and were prisoners.

15 It also proceeds to state: "Among others, there are 20 Arab guards." Do

16 you see that?

17 A. Not yet. Where is this in the paragraph, please?

18 Q. Immediately below the indented paragraph starting with "Sarajevo

19 sport hall" and then approximately seven to 10 lines below that.

20 A. I see that.

21 Q. You were in the area during the period in question, namely, April

22 through - in part - August, September 1992. Would you know if that

23 reference to the 20 Arab guards is a reference to mercenaries who arrived

24 in the Bosnia and Croatian territories in February of 1992 to assist the

25 Muslims in their fight and battle?

1 A. I don't recall anything about these Arab guards.

2 Q. Would it be safe to state that when we referenced "20 Arab

3 guards," clearly they are not referring to the Bosnian Muslims or the

4 Croatian Muslims that lived in the former territory known as Yugoslavia.

5 Correct?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Sir, in your job and during your duties there, did you ever hear a

8 rumour or a report of these Arab mercenaries who came into either Bosnia

9 or Croatia to help during the civil war that was taking place there?

10 A. There were indeed reports and rumours of Middle Eastern Muslim

11 mercenaries or fighters supplied to the Bosnian Muslim part of the

12 coalition.

13 Q. What, if anything, did you and your group do to verify that fact,

14 or that rumour?

15 A. I don't recall that we did anything, which would be natural,

16 because we were excluded from Bosnia for almost all of that period.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the parties not to discuss rumours.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Q. Sir, going back now, if I may, to the Trnopolje camp, on page 58

20 on your transcript yesterday, and just refreshing your recollection on

21 that, specifically line 12, you answer a question on the organisation of

22 the camps, particularly Trnopolje and Manjaca is what you're referencing

23 there, and your answer is as follows: "Yes, there was firm clear

24 organisation and chains of command evident, particularly at Manjaca, and

25 also at Trnopolje. It was clear that the uniformed personnel were under

1 clear command." Line 14. Taking that into account, if you can turn to

2 the CSCE report where they discuss Trnopolje, specifically at ERN and Bate

3 stamp number 00999619, under the discussion captioned "general conditions

4 in Trnopolje" the very last sentence of that section it states: "This

5 centre appears to have no real organisation and is undoubtedly `a disaster

6 ready to happen'."

7 Help me with this, sir, was the CSCE incorrect in saying that the

8 centre had no real organisation or was the fact that there was no real

9 organisation at Trnopolje? Which of the two statements would be accurate?

10 A. Both are completely accurate.

11 Q. So they were organised and yet unorganised?

12 A. I'll explain.

13 Q. Please.

14 A. The centre having no real organisation appears to be a reference

15 to the way that the internal part of the centre --

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Witness, may I interrupt. Are you aware what

17 you are saying here. You are clearly stating under solemn declaration

18 that you know on the basis of facts that this centre had no organisation.

19 Do you know this by facts?

20 THE WITNESS: What I said, Your Honour, was that this sentence

21 appears to be saying that the centre had no organisation within it, and

22 the reason I used the word "appears to be saying" was to make clear the

23 fact that I am saying what it seems to be saying in the light of my

24 knowledge of the situation on the ground.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it correct that you are not one of the

1 authors of this report?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And is it correct that what you are doing now is

4 more or less guessing?

5 THE WITNESS: No, in my opinion, I am interpreting the meaning of

6 the report in response to a question.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you have any underlying facts bringing you to

8 this conclusion?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, my knowledge of the ground, my presence that

10 day, and my reports that I've sense refreshed my memory with. I think it

11 might help Your Honour if I give the second part of what I was about to

12 say which might make clear the response I was going to give which is

13 dependent on fact.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It was already now the second time that I had to

15 caution you, that you have to base what you are saying here on facts. And

16 it's no doubt that the Defence has the right to put the question to you.

17 But you're responsible for the answers.

18 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm trying to reconcile two sentences

19 which the Defence points out may appear to some to be conflicting. So let

20 me, then, perhaps explain what I meant by my statement about clear command

21 and confine my remarks initially, my response initially to that.

22 We were visiting Trnopolje in the company of the Bosnian Serb

23 authorities. The military personnel, or uniformed personnel, they might

24 have been paramilitary, I don't know, at Trnopolje were aware of our

25 visit, and it is for that reason that I say that they were clearly under

1 command because there could have been no official visit conducted in that

2 manner, with the knowledge and accompaniment of the Bosnian Serb

3 authorities, unless the soldiers were of the -- under command in a manner

4 which they recognised. And it is for that reason that I stand by my

5 statement. And I will with the Judges' direction to leave it to the Court

6 to decide how to interpret the sentence in the CSCE report.

7 MR. OSTOJIC:

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may proceed, Your Honour.

10 Q. Also in that section on the same page in the CSCE report, under

11 the same section "General Conditions in Trnopolje" the first sentence

12 states as follows: "We have been led to believe that the authority is

13 relatively relaxed during the mornings and until 3.00 p.m. each afternoon

14 when the major in charge completes his on-site duties." Did you see that,

15 sir?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. With respect to that, just so I'm clear, it's a military personnel

18 with a rank of major, correct, it's not to be confused with what you've

19 coined previously in the meetings that you have had with a mayor, having

20 the Y instead of the J. Correct?

21 A. I have been cautioned on commenting on what this report means.

22 The word "major" in English cannot be confused with the word "mayor" in

23 English. But it may be a spelling mistake and I can't comment on whether

24 this is a spelling mistake.

25 Q. You were there and based on whatever amount of time you were

1 there, do you recall any discussion that actually the camp commander or

2 the major who was in charge, whether he completed his on-site duties and

3 was not on the premises after 3.00 p.m.

4 A. I don't recall any such discussion.

5 Q. On the second page or the next page of this annex that we're

6 referring, which has the ERN number 00999620, it discusses and continues

7 to discuss the conditions at Trnopolje and how some of the detainees there

8 maintained contact with the outside world. If I may direct your attention

9 to that next page, the very last paragraph. Have you found it, sir?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you. With respect to that, do you recall ever discussing

12 with the detainees or prisoners at Trnopolje camp what or how they made

13 contact with the outside world?

14 A. No, I don't recall discussing that with them.

15 Q. Do you remember seeing or discussing with any of the detainees at

16 the Trnopolje camp whether they were allowed to walk about the centre

17 relatively freely, were given the opportunity to play chess, and engage in

18 more lively conversations with their fellows?

19 A. Yes, I observed that, and I remember commenting on it in this

20 Court.

21 Q. I know it was read to you, but I wasn't sure if you --

22 A. Sorry. I don't know if I conversed with them about that subject,

23 but I was able to witness that they were doing those things.

24 Q. If I can direct your attention now back to your statement that you

25 have in front of you dated March 14th and 15th, 2000, page 6, at the

1 bottom of that statement, I'm focussing, if I may, your attention to the

2 third full paragraph in connection with the topic of Bosanska Gradiska.

3 Have you found it?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Sir, who was the mayor of Bosanska Gradiska that you reference

6 that you met on or about August 30th, 1992?

7 A. I don't remember his name.

8 Q. And with respect to that visit, you seem to have an impression, as

9 you state yourself on the last sentence, that you had an impression both

10 in April and May and August and September that the civilian authorities

11 cooperated closely with the military authorities and the police. Is it

12 fair to say, sir, that in light of that statement and that visit to

13 Bosanska Gradiska, it is indeed limited to and only relates to Bosanska

14 Gradiska?

15 A. With respect to April-May 1992, it would not be limited to

16 Bosanska Gradiska because we were in frequent contact with many parts of

17 the society there, including military and political. In respect of

18 August-September 1992, I don't remember if we met military and civilians

19 together outside that Bosanska Gradiska meeting except, of course, within

20 Manjaca and Trnopolje.

21 Q. Can you describe for me what the uniforms were of the personnel

22 that were at the Trnopolje Detention Centre?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Do you know if the uniforms that the personnel had that were at

25 the Trnopolje Detention Centre, whether these uniforms were consistent

1 with each and every member who was securing the facility? Were they

2 uniform?

3 A. I don't remember.

4 Q. Do you know, sir, who was the camp commander, if you will, or

5 representative leader of the camp at Trnopolje?

6 A. I don't remember.

7 Q. Do you know if you ever met that individual?

8 A. I don't remember.

9 Q. Do you know if he was a military or civilian?

10 A. I don't remember.

11 Q. You state -- or it states on the CSCE report in describing

12 Manjaca, following the aspect that we just discussed with respect to

13 Trnopolje, that there were "German Shepherd guard dogs were seen

14 patrolling the periphery of the centre, manned watchtowers were located at

15 different points in the camp, and mines surrounded the camp and separated

16 internal areas of the grounds." You can find that at ERN number 00999622

17 under the caption "Facility." Have you found that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you tell us if Trnopolje during the 6 to 15 interviews that

20 you conducted with the detainees there, whether any of them at any time

21 informed or advised you that there were mines that surrounded the camp?

22 A. I don't remember any of them making that claim.

23 Q. If they had made that claim, you would have recorded it. Correct?

24 A. Very probably.

25 Q. Throughout both the CSCE report and your witness statement,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 there's an estimate given of anywhere between 1.600 and 2.000 Muslim

2 detainees that were kept in the Trnopolje camp. Various sections of this

3 report, they mention the number 1.600. Did your or your group, sir, ever

4 conduct a count of the detainees at Trnopolje?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Do you know of any organisation or institution which conducted a

7 count of the detainees at the Trnopolje camp?

8 A. No, and I'd like to seek the guidance of the judge at this point,

9 bearing in mind his former cautions, that I can comment on what would be

10 normal ICRC practice in such a case. But I wonder whether that would be

11 permissible to the Court.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If it is based on facts, no doubt you should do

13 so.

14 THE WITNESS: Well, the fact that it is normal ICRC practice to

15 make lists, complete lists, of all places of detention.

16 MR. OSTOJIC:

17 Q. Have you ever seen that list, sir, to determine whether the number

18 that you cite in your witness statement and the report that's referenced

19 in the CSCE report is accurate or not?

20 A. I would never be permitted to see an ICRC list.

21 Q. Why is that?

22 A. Because of their internal regulations.

23 Q. What about their internal regulations that prohibit us from

24 obtaining something that perhaps, individually, we would deem relevant?

25 Do you know of anything that would prohibit us --

1 A. I don't understand the question. Would you please repeat it.

2 Q. I'll restate it.

3 A. Restate, thank you.

4 Q. It was an awkward question. I'd hate to repeat that one.

5 What, to your knowledge, of the regulations of the ICRC would

6 prohibit anyone from seeing the list of the individuals who were detained

7 at Trnopolje camp, if you know?

8 A. They are very discreet about all information to do with detainees.

9 However, they do have to share lists sometimes when it is necessary, for

10 example, to arrange a prisoner transfer.

11 Q. Do you know if the ICRC report would also break down the gender,

12 age, and composition of the people who were detained at an individual camp

13 such as Trnopolje?

14 A. I don't know their internal practices in detail.

15 Q. I just want to ask a clarification question on your note-taking

16 and practices. We've heard from other witnesses and your colleagues, as

17 you've heard Mr. McLeod, et cetera, did you at any time retain your

18 handwritten notes of any of the meetings that you were present at in

19 either April-May or at any time in August-September of 1992?

20 A. At about the time the 2000 interview, I did a search of my

21 records, and I couldn't find any of my handwritten notes of any

22 significance.

23 Q. I'm not sure I understand. Why would you say "of any

24 significance"? Did you find your notes or did you not find your notes,

25 handwritten notes?

1 A. I didn't find any notes of meetings. And anything that I

2 found -- I don't remember if I found anything, first of all. But anything

3 that I found, if I did find something, was not pertinent to the case or to

4 anything in my statement as it seemed to me. And I therefore gave it no

5 further thought.

6 Q. On this exhibit, S215, and I just have a couple questions on it, I

7 know you touched upon it yesterday where it's a report dated -- generated

8 by you dated September 4th, 1992, and you have the word "caveat" placed

9 underneath. There's nothing under the word caveat, although I read the

10 transcript and I am familiar, who deleted that section of your report and

11 why?

12 A. The head of mission deleted it. And I don't know why. He thought

13 that the report in this current form was more appropriate to send to

14 London, and I'd like to just inform the Court of this point, because I

15 think it's relevant, that I checked last night a diskette which I had

16 brought with me on which some reports I didn't realise I had are. And I'm

17 sorry for me remissness in not finding this before. But I did find this

18 particular document of mine on the diskette in its full form, including

19 the paragraph under "caveat." And I can submit that to the Court if you

20 would like. The paragraph says that, from my memory, because we had not

21 got the Serb side of the story during these visits from Trnopolje -- to

22 Trnopolje and Manjaca, I advised caution and the document should be

23 protected. I was very keen on impartial balance, as was important. I

24 also mentioned in that paragraph that we had not had the chance to assess

25 more widely across northern Bosnia.

1 Q. If I may, sir, inquire, and if the Court permits -- if I may be

2 permitted to inquire, sir, you also state that you found other reports on

3 this diskette that you previously didn't see or didn't remember? Would

4 that be kind of fair?

5 A. What happened was that -- sorry, first of all. There are other

6 reports on the diskette. And I had not looked at the diskette until last

7 night since my return from the Balkans nine years ago or so.

8 Q. How many reports -- how many reports are there that fit within the

9 category that you've just described?

10 A. What do you mean by the --

11 Q. The number.

12 A. -- Category?

13 Q. Two reports?

14 A. The category that I've just described, what do you mean by that?

15 Q. That you previously didn't know that you had and previously had

16 not reviewed.

17 A. On this diskette, I'm not sure, perhaps 20 reports. As I

18 mentioned, I had done a search in 2000 because I live a nomadic existence

19 and have only recently got married and settled down, all my effects have

20 been dispersed. I did a final search just before coming here and found a

21 couple of diskettes which were unclearly marked. I threw them in my

22 luggage and then I'm afraid, forgot about their existence until last

23 night.

24 I checked them last night and found a number of reports dating

25 from the ECMM. So they are now available to the Court, if you wish. All

1 of them are to be found in the ECMM archive, if the archive has been

2 correctly preserved, and they can be checked for correctness with the ECMM

3 archive. I have been informed that a search has been made of the ECMM

4 archive, and a great many reports with my name have been found, only a

5 proportion of which were relevant to this trial. So it's possible that

6 all of these reports that I found last night are already available and

7 have been rejected as not relevant, but the Court may wish to check that.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mayhew.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: We have no further questions, but we would ask the

10 Court -- or we would like to make an application to at least be given the

11 opportunity to review those additional 20 or so reports, including the

12 report of September 4th, 1992, which I think was introduced as S215, which

13 has the item of caveat and the language that was provided, although I

14 appreciate Mr. Mayhew's recollection of that. We would like, if possible,

15 to be able to examine the caveat that he placed and the reasons perhaps

16 will enlighten us as to why objectivity and fairness to all sides was

17 something that Mr. Mayhew, as he testified, was desirous of. Thank you,

18 Your Honour. Thank you, sir.

19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, first of all, there may be a problem

20 over this. The documents, I think, are probably still the property of the

21 European monitoring mission, or as it is now called the European Union

22 Monitoring Mission. In order for anyone to have these documents,

23 certainly the ones that we had in our possession, we had to get their

24 permission to disclose, and I think we would need to make inquiries of

25 that.

1 The second thing about this is Mr. Mayhew is, in fact, due to

2 return in September, if he still agrees after today, to testify in the

3 Brdjanin/Talic case. So, it may be that we can deal with the authority

4 that may be required. We haven't obviously -- because he was giving

5 evidence, none of us could speak to him overnight none of us knew he had

6 found these documents. But it seems to me rather than rush into this, we

7 could see what the situation is.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt that we have to be cautious on this

9 issue, because even though the witness before us is or may be the author

10 of these documents and the only author, he is not the owner of the

11 documents. And therefore I would suggest the following: That the witness

12 may give the diskette to the OTP. It's the witness of the OTP. And then

13 the parties may, first of all, try to come to a conclusion amongst

14 themselves how to proceed. No doubt, when it seems to be necessary to

15 have the one or other document here present, then the authorisation of the

16 owner of this document is required.

17 As regards Document S215, to be honest, I can't see an obstacle to

18 print out this document and substituting the word "caveat" what was

19 deleted there, to bring it to our attention and distribute this page in

20 the full version. Only as regards S215. And then please, the parties may

21 confer about the future of all of the other documents contained in this

22 diskette.

23 Do you have the diskette with you today?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please hand it over after the hearing to the

1 Office of the Prosecutor.

2 THE WITNESS: I apologise for the lateness of discovery of it.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, indeed. I'm acquainted with the rule that

4 the witness, when appearing, is also preparing for the testimony himself

5 in due time. But nevertheless, thank you for giving us this hint on this

6 document, late but not too late.

7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it's certainly not Mr. Mayhew's fault if

8 anything because although we asked at the time, we didn't reask when we

9 saw him yesterday. Your Honour, I do have one question in re-examination,

10 if I may, before Your Honour questions.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All the time you want until 7.00.

12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Mr. Mayhew, of course, will be leaving.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, proceed with the --

14 Re-examined by Ms. Korner:

15 Q. Just one question, it was put to you that there was no such thing

16 as a mayor in the Bosnian system. Can you tell us how you came to

17 describe these persons that you saw such as Mr. Radic, the gentleman from

18 Gradiska, as a mayor?

19 A. We also referred to Mr. Radic as the mayor of Banja Luka. So I am

20 surprised to hear that in English translation, mayor is not a recognised

21 term.

22 Q. How did you come to understand the position that he held, which

23 you equated with the English word "mayor"?

24 A. We universally referred to Mr. Radic as the mayor of Banja Luka,

25 and I'm certain that we would have been corrected many times by our

1 interpreter if that was not the case, which leads me to the believe that

2 the interpreter referred to him as the mayor in translation.

3 MS. KORNER: Yes, thank you. That's all that I ask.

4 Questioned by the Court:

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Two or three questions. On Exhibit Number S215,

6 page 2, we can read at the end of paragraph 5: "The houses were burned"

7 and then in parenthesis, to continue, "the team visited a part of Kozarac

8 and found nearly all the houses burned. These houses were last seen by

9 the ECMM in April intact and inhabited."

10 Did you yourself see the houses burned?

11 A. I saw houses burned along that route. As I mentioned yesterday, I

12 cannot with certainty remember whether I was part of the team going into

13 Kozarac. I would have seen the edge of Kozarac from the road, houses in

14 that area. But -- so I don't know whether I went into the part of Kozarac

15 referred to here. It might have been a colleague of mine or myself.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you signed this report.

17 A. That's correct.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you don't have your own knowledge about

19 this?

20 A. I was writing the report on behalf of the whole ECMM team that

21 went that day. What I cannot recollect is the exact formation, makeup, of

22 that team. If it was more than two people, it might have been other

23 people within that team, and I'm signing this report on behalf of the

24 whole team.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you see these houses as it's mentioned here

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 in April "intact and inhabited?"

2 A. Again, on that main route, and visiting those -- and visiting in

3 the area, we saw all the houses along that route intact and inhabited.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Finally, just for clarification, you were

5 already asked yesterday, and I apologise for the parties that I myself

6 request quote only now by the concrete hour because it's not paginated

7 what I have before me, it was at 15.26 yesterday. The question was:

8 "Have you ever met Mr. Stakic on your earlier visits to Prijedor?" And

9 then you said: "I don't know. I had certainly met the leader of the Serb

10 community or Serb party in, as I mentioned earlier, but I don't remember

11 his name."

12 Then the question was do you think you would be able to recognise

13 Dr. Stakic again? And then I was to a certain extent surprised,

14 experienced with ordinary witness reaction. You even didn't look around

15 in this courtroom. Have you seen in this courtroom any person, at least

16 that you tried to find out where in this courtroom could a person that

17 might be Dr. Stakic, why this reaction? Why didn't you try to find out?

18 A. I know that the accused is sitting right there. I confined myself

19 to answering the question strictly.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So I take it that you are not able to recognise

21 Dr. Stakic at all?

22 A. I have not made it my business to look carefully at him, and so I

23 haven't tried to recognise him. And the main reason for that is that I am

24 not certain that I would be able to tell whether I recognised him or not.

25 And I think it unlikely to be a reliable guide to the Court.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the basis of the answers provided yesterday

2 and today, I don't want to go in any further details.

3 Any questions from Judge Fassi Fihri? Judge Vassylenko? There

4 are no further questions.

5 The Defence, do you have any further questions emanating from my

6 questions?

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Just for the record, Your Honour, I do have the time

8 that the Court noted, 15.26.55, and that would be on page 29, lines 8

9 through 14 of that transcript.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this assistance.

11 If the witness would be then please so kind after having left the

12 courtroom giving the diskette to a representative of the Prosecutor --

13 Office of the Prosecutor, you're excused. And thank you for coming.

14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

15 [The witness withdrew]

16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, just before Mr. Mayhew leaves, an

17 investigator whom he has met is on her way down and will speak to him.

18 Thank you.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And I have to inform the parties that during the

20 last break, I got a letter of Madam Caillou telling me that she has made

21 all necessary efforts that the expected witness for Monday will arrive on

22 Sunday.

23 MS. KORNER: Thank you.

24 Your Honour, may I now that Mr. Mayhew has left, and I do very

25 reluctantly. Your Honour, Mr. Mayhew, as with Mr. McLeod, came specially,

1 cancelled a business engagement, to come to the Court. He's not, if I may

2 say so, respectfully, like ordinary, everyday witnesses. And one of the

3 things that Your Honour should know in particular in the light of Your

4 Honour's last remark is that Mr. Mayhew comes from an English legal

5 family, quite a well known one, and in England it is the law, and he knows

6 it, that you can't make dock identifications. And that's why when -- I

7 knew, because I asked him in advance whether he would recognise him, and

8 he said no. And that's why I simply asked the question, so Your Honours

9 would be aware that he couldn't recognise Dr. Stakic.

10 Your Honours, I'm a little troubled, and I say so deeply

11 respectfully about the attitude that Your Honour took to Mr. Mayhew. For

12 the most part, it's not my job to protect witnesses. They come here, and

13 they know what they are in for. But for the most part, Mr. Mayhew was

14 doing his best to answer questions from either me or Mr. Ostojic,

15 questions which Your Honours may have thought were badly phrased or went

16 into details that were unnecessary. But it wasn't the witness's fault.

17 And Your Honour, I am, as I say, and I do say so, with some reluctance, a

18 little troubled about the manner that Your Honour adopted towards Mr.

19 Mayhew.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I hope it was clear enough that on this

21 occasion, I didn't criticise either party. But nevertheless, on the basis

22 of experience, having heard witnesses, asked witnesses myself, not only in

23 my own legal system, admittedly it is very limited that I ever have seen a

24 witness giving such statements which could lead to a misinterpretation of

25 the answers. And I regard it as necessary that a witness tries to evade,

1 to speculations, that I have to caution him. And I will do so also in the

2 future because what we need here is facts, and sometimes, if, especially

3 an inexperienced witness, answers a question where he cannot find any kind

4 of basis for his answers, and to be very concrete, for the limited time he

5 has been in the area and in Trnopolje, I regard it as my duty to caution

6 the witness in the appropriate way.

7 Nothing further should be said in this context, save that here, it

8 was nothing in the direction of one or other party. The same was true

9 already yesterday, and with a deep concern we saw the transcript of

10 yesterday.

11 MS. KORNER: On that note, Your Honour, I'm not going back to what

12 I've raised, but as I said, Your Honour, it assists us if Your Honours

13 make your concerns known, because as far as we're concerned, using the

14 same word, the evidence that he gave was relevant and admissible, in

15 particular, in respect of the visit to the camps that he went with. So if

16 Your Honours are troubled, as I say, it helps if Your Honours indicate

17 that either at the time or at a later stage.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But once again, to be extremely concrete, one

19 reason for the problems arising here is that the Judges are not informed.

20 We have to act on an uninformed basis. What we had before us, deciding

21 whether or not we should hear the witness as a live witness, and not only

22 to admit this document which could easily be introduced on the basis of

23 the witness statement of Mr. McLeod, we were informed by the OTP that he

24 met with Dr. Stakic in Prijedor who stated that Muslims were detained for

25 their own safety. And as I said before, the OTP provides very, very

1 limited evidence directly related to Dr. Stakic when it comes to witness

2 evidence. And therefore, we have to rely on that information we get from

3 the OTP. On this case, I have to re-emphasise the information we got was

4 really misleading. We didn't have any additional material.

5 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, I thought Your Honours were supplied in

6 advance with the statements and a list -- and the documents and a list

7 that we were going to put in.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We received this latter part one day before

9 starting.

10 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I understand that. I appreciate

11 that the Rule 65 ter summaries are in many cases very terse. But if Your

12 Honours had felt, having seen, as I know Your Honours do, read the

13 statement, that the evidence he was going to give was irrelevant, although

14 as we say, we would submit it's highly relevant, then we would be grateful

15 in future if Your Honours would indicate that to us.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On what basis, and when should we do so? And I

17 have never said that the evidence given was irrelevant. Of course, as we

18 said also in response to the motion of the Defence as regards another

19 witness, it's later for the Judges to evaluate the probative value of a

20 witness statement. And of course, we have to refrain from discussing

21 these issues here and now. The only point is the parties are requesting

22 us, and the rules are asking, that we are preparing our decisions, whether

23 or not we introduce a witness statement under Rule 92 bis, and we can only

24 do this when informed. And when we have this limited information of two

25 lines and one word, and these two lines and one word are already this

1 limited, information is misleading, then it is difficult to exercise

2 conscientiously, our mandate. And as we did earlier, we would be more

3 than eager to know the relevant information provided to the parties in

4 advance that we can, on an adequate basis, decide whether or not to apply

5 Rule 92 bis or not. And this was in this case the problem. And I think

6 as regards the testimony as such, it was discussed enough.

7 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honour, can I just then say, though, if

8 Your Honours are going -- Your Honour is going to make a statement like

9 "the transcript troubled you," we would wish to know because obviously,

10 if it's a matter that Your Honours are going to take into consideration in

11 any sort of deliberation, then we would ask respectfully that we get a

12 chance to address any concerns Your Honours may have.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, I didn't get the point about "transcript

14 troubled you." This was only the problem. I was grateful that we got the

15 assistance by the Defence giving us the page and it was only the question

16 of the pagination today.

17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour said earlier when you read the transcript

18 from last night of yesterday's proceedings I think Your Honour used the

19 word, that -- I'd have to go back, and said you were troubled.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

21 MS. KORNER: That's what I'm addressing at the moment, that

22 aspect. If Your Honours are troubled by something, we would be grateful

23 for an indication as to what it is, so we can address the matter either by

24 way of submission or any other way.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think I did it sufficiently as regards the two

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 last witnesses, taking into account that Witness S took us four hours, 43

2 minutes instead of envisaged one and a half hour. The cross-examination

3 took exactly 28 minutes. And what my point was there, that this witness

4 indeed could have been heard in the examination-in-chief in one and a half

5 hour.

6 Shall I really re-emphasise that we are spending not our money,

7 but the money of the international taxpayer and we have to take care how

8 we are spending our time.

9 The trial stands adjourned until next Monday, 9.00.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

11 7.04 p.m., to be reconvened on

12 Monday, the 22nd day of July, 2002,

13 at 9.00 a.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25